Design Report for Midway Road Reconstruction May 2002 􀁾􀀠Prepared By: I 􀁾􀁗􀀠Grantham. gurge " Waldbauer ." Engineers, Inc. 
ENGINEERING DESIGN REPORT FOR MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ) for the TOWN OF ADDISON .z. Prepared by: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 South Shiloh Road Suite SOO, LB 27 Garland, Texas 75042 June
2002 
Table ofContents Engineering Design Report for Midway Road Reconstruction 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDmON ....................
.................. 3 3.0 PROJECT PHASING .................................................... 5 4.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL .................. 7 5.0 STORM SEWER ANALYSIS
............................................ 12 5.1 Existing Stonn Sewer System ....................................... 12 5.2 Proposed Stonn Sewer System Improvements ..........................
14 6.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ......................................... 15 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 16 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I Belt Line
to Lindbergh Traffic Sequencing Alternative I Exhibit 2 Belt Line to Lindbergh Traffic Sequencing Alternative 2 ) Exhibit 3 Belt Line to Lindbergh Tr!1ffic Sequencing Alternative 3 Exhibit
4 Lindbergh to Keller Springs Traffic Sequencing Alternative I Exhibit 5 Lindbergh to Keller Springs Traffic Sequencing Alternative 2 Exhibit 6 Lindbergh to Keller Springs Traffic Sequencing
Alternative 3 Exhibit 7 Drainage Area Map Exhibit 8 Proposed Drainage Improvements (Sheets I -3 of3) LIST OF TABLES Table I Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost -Phase I Table 2 Engineer's
Opinion ofProbable Cost -Phase 2 Table 3 . Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost -Phase 3 Table 4 Engineer's Opinion ofProbable Cost -Total Project LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A April
2, 2001 memo from GBW to Steve Chutchian (Town) and Jerry . Holder (HNTB) concerning Cement Treated Penneable Base Appendix B May 7, 2001 memo from GBW to Steve Chutchian concerning
Ductbanks Appendix C May 16,200 I letter from GBW to Steve Chutchian concerning the Midway Road Pavement Section. Appendix D Alpha Testing Geotechnical Report Appendix E Existing Storm
Sewer System Spreadsheets Appendix F Proposed Stonn Sewer System Spreadsheets ) Appendix G HY-8 Existing Culvert Analysis 00-238 Midway RfXld DeSign Report June 2
1102 Section 1 Introduction GBW Engineers, Inc. (GBW) was retained by the Town of Addison on September 7, 2000, to provide the surveying, engineering, and geotechnical services required
for the design ofPhase One of the reconstruction of Midway Road from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road. GBW's subconsultants on this project were HNTB Corporation (construction sequencing
and traffic control) and Alpha Testing, Inc. (geotechnical). GBW's agreement with the Town represents Phase One of what is anticipated to be a two-phase design process. Phase One consists
ofthe preparation ofall the construction plans and specifications necessary for the reconstruction work except for construction sequencing and traffic control, landscaping and irrigation,
storm water pollution prevention plan and erosion control, signalization, and temporary lighting, and sidewalks. All median opening widths, turn lane lengths, and street and driveway
radii have been reviewed and design changes made where appropriate. Phase One included the preparation ofthis engineering report which is intended to provide a basis for the Town to
establish a construction phasing and funding approach for this project. The scope ofwork for this design report included the following project issues; phasing alternatives for the reconstruction
work a recommended construction sequencing and traffic control approach for the project the limits of reconstruction work which can be accomplished with available bond funds preparation
ofan Opinion ofProbable Cost. Phase Two, which will be completed at a later date, consists of completing the remaining construction plans along with separating the plans prepared in
Phase One into a separate bid package fur construction phasing purposes. Public notification and coordination with other cities, DART and affected businesses will be included in Phase
Two. Bidding and construction services will also be provided. During the execution ofthis project, several important design related issues surfaced that required detailed evaluation.
As these issues were not included in the scope ofservices for the design report, they are not included in the main body of this report. However, in order to make this report an all-inclusive
reference for Phase One ofthe Midway Road Reconstruction Project, previous memos and letters that discuss related design issues have been included in the Appendices A through C. These
memos include the following: • Appendix A: April 2; 2001 memo from GBW to Steve Chutchian (Town) and Jerry Holder (HNTB) concerning Cement Treated Permeable Base; • Appendix B; May 7,
2001 merno from GBW to Steve Chutchian concerning Ductbanks; • Appendix C: May 16, 2001 letter from GBW to Steve Chutchian concerning the Midway Road Pavement Section. 00·238 Midway
&adDesign Report June 2002 
Section 1 Introduction Phase One ofthe design included the preparation of a geotechnical report by Alpha Testing. This report contains the results of field explorations and laboratory
testing and an engineering interpretation of this data. The results and analyses were used to develop recommendations for remedial design and reconstruction ofthe Midway Road pavement.
A copy ofthe geotechnical report is contained in Appendix D. An important design issue that surfaced which was beyond GBW's initial scope ofservices, was the adequacy of the existing
storm drainage system. The Town's staff determined that it would be worthwhile to evaluate whether or not the existing storm sewer system meets current city criteria. One reason for
doing so is the significant savings that could be realized by upgrading the existing system during the pavement reconstruction process, as opposed to doing so independently from the
reconstruction work. Given the comprehensive nature ofGBW's evaluation of the storm drainage system, a written summary is provided in Section 5. ) 01)..238 Midway Road Desl8" Repent
2 June 2002 
Section 2 Existing Pavement Condition In order to obtain a comprehensive inventory of the distress in the Midway Road pavement, the following steps were taken: • Inconjunction with staff
from the Town ofAddison and Alpha Testing, GBW performed an indepth inspection of the existing condition ofthe Midway Road pavement. • GBW performed an independent walk-through, from
Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road, during which all the evidence ofpavement distress was marked on a set ofbase sheets. • Town ofAddison staff provided a history ofthe pavement's
life, including a summary ofthe repair and rehabilitation work which had previously been carried out. • Alpha Testing obtained, tested and evaluated 22 pavement core samples and furnished
a geotechnical report. Pictures taken during the walk-through, which are representative ofthe condition ofMidway Road, are shown at the end ofthis section. A summary ofthe results ofGBW's
inventory and analysis is contained in a letter report which was prepared for the Town ofAddison on May 16,200 I and is contained in Appendix C. The highlights of this letter report
are provided below: ) • The pavement distress along the northbound lanes is more pronounced than \he southbound lanes. • The worst section ofthe southbound lanes is in the vicinity ofthe
railroad crossing near the Belt Line Road end ofthe project where there is a sag in the profile. • The cross-slope on the northbound lanes, which is mostly in the 118 to I/4-inch per
foot range, is significantly less than the southbound lanes, where it is mostly in the 1/4 to \4-inch per foot renge. • The difference between the northbound and southbound lane cross-slopes
appears to have resulted from an attempt to match the existing ground at the esst and west right-of-way lines when the current Midway Road pavement was designed in 1982. • The flatter
cross-slope on the northbound lanes increases the likelihood that surface water will pond or runoff slowly, resulting in a higher infiltration rate into the subgrade through pavement
joints joints and cracks. • In addition to rainfall, sprinkler systems in the medians and adjacent parkways are other sources of water which can infiltrate the subgrade. • Flat longitudinal
slopes along some sections of Midway Road also slow the rate of storm water runoff; for example, in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. • Poor surface drainage appears to be the primary
reason why pavement distress has been more rapid along most ofthe northbound lanes than along the southbound lanes. • The poor condition of many pavement joints, some ofwhich may have
been widened when the pavement was milled and resealed in 1994, provide conduits for surface water to reach the subgrade. 011·238 Midway Road Design lleparl 3 JUlIe 2002 
Section 2 Existing Pavement Condition • The plasticity index of the lll1derlying clay soil is generally in the 18 to 55 range, which indicates a high potential to shrink and swell. •
The soil borings do not provide evidence ofa grolll1d water problem. • Only eight ofthe 22 soil borings showed evidence oflime in the subgrade, which suggests that the lime stabilized
subgrade was not lll1ifbnnly constructed. • A combination ofmoisture penetration over time and nonunifonn lime stabilization during construction has probably reduced the bearing capacity
ofthe subgrade. • The load transfer capability of the transverse contraction joints has been insufficient to support the heavy traffic volume, resulting in a difference in pavement elevation
at the front and back ends ofadjacent slabs. • This difference, which results in a bump at the pavement joints on the northbound lanes in particular, has also resulted in a transverse
crack at the midpoint of some slabs. 00-238 Midway Rood Design Repor/4 JUlle 2002 
) Looking North towards Wright Brothers Drive Looking North from Wiley Post Road 
) East side ofMidway between railroad tracks and Lindberg Drive ) \ J Looking North from Lindberg Drive 
) Looking South towards railroad tracks ) ,, Looking South towards Beltline Road 
) , -' Section 3 Project Phasing After the pavement inspection process was completed, GBW calculated approximate quantities for the reconstruction work. These quantities were then matched
with unit prices obtained from similar projects and from contractor estimates to determine whether or not there were sufficient bond funds available to reconstruct Midway Road from Belt
Line Road to Keller Springs Road as one project. According to Town staff, $4.75 million in bond funds is available for this project. Itwas detemuned that these funds were budgeted to
include payment for engineering services, landscape and irrigation replacement, temporary lighting, in addition to all other project related expenses. An initial order-of-magnitude Opinion
of Probable Cost prepared by GBW revealed that the available bond money was significantly less than that total funds required to reconstruct the entire project. Consequently, it was
apparent that, unless additional funds were found, the project would need to bephased, with the limits ofPhase 1reconstruction being established so as not to exceed the available $4.75
million. As GBW's plan preparation work neared completion, a more detailed Opinion ofProbable cost of $6,682,583.60 was prepared for the reconstruction of the complete project in one
phase. This Opinion ofProbable Cost, which is included in Section 5.0, confirmed that insufficient funds were available to reconstruct the roadway, from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs
Road, in one phase. At this time, GBW met with the Town's staffto determine the most appropriate construction phasing limits. Through coordination with the Town's staff, it was determined
to reconstruct the project in three phases, with the worst condition pavement being replaced first and the pavement in the best condition being constructed last. The Phase One Reconstruction
limits were establisbed such that this phase could be constructed with the available funds. The Opinion ofProbable Cost for each phase includes an allowance for the landscaping and irrigation,
which was provided by Dave Baldwin, a landscape architect under separate contract with the Town. Section 5 of this report presents an Opinion ofProbable Cost for each construction phase
in more detail. Reconstruction Phases Phase I: Construct the northbound lanes from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road (approximately 5700 feet ofroadway) and the southbound lanes
from Belt Line Road to Lindbergh Drive (approximately 1500 feet ofroadway). Opinion ofProbable Cost $4,300,251.56 Phase 2: Construct the southbound lanes from Boyington Drive to Keller
Springs Road (approximately 1700 feet ofroadway). Opinion ofProbable Cost $1,073,233.92) 00-238 Midway Road Design Report 5 June 20()2 
Section 3 Pro;ect Phasing Phase 3: Construct the southbound lanes from Lindbergh Drive to Boyington Drive (approximately 2500 feet ofroadway). Opinion ofProbable Cost $1,668,715.62 00-238
Midway Road Design REport 6 JufVJ 2002 
Section 4 Construction Sequencing and Traffic Control GBW's subconsultant, HNTB, prepared construction sequencing and traffic control alternatives for the Midway Road Pavement Reconstruction
project During Phase I of the project, approximately 1500 linear feet ofthe northbound and southbound lanes will be constructed simultaneously from Belt Line Road to Lingbergh Drive.
The remainder ofPhase I and all ofPhases 2 and 3, from Lindbergh Drive to Keller Springs Road, the project will consist ofthe northbound and southbound lanes being constructed separately.
Therefore, the construction sequencing has been broken into two sections, Belt Line Road to Lindbergh Drive and Lindbergh Drive to Keller Springs Road. Belt Line Road to Lindbergh Drive
Through this segment ofthe project, both the northbound and southbound lanes will be reconstructed during Phase 1. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the lane sequencing alternatives considered
for this segment ofthe project. It should be noted that each construction sequencing sequencing alternative involves the installation oftemporary pavement in the median. The temporary
paving ofthe median is needed in order to provide sufficient pavement surface so that at least two lanes of traffic can be maintained during the reconstruction work. The median landscaping
will need to be removed and replaced, however, the Town's Landscape staff had projected to re-Iandscape the Midway Road corridor in the future. In addition, the street lights in the
median will need to be removed prior to, and replaced after, the reconstruction work. It is also anticipated thattemporary lighting will be required while the median lights are out ofservice.
Temporary relocation ofthe railroad gates will need to be coordinated with DART. The only temporary paving alternative to the median is to nse the parkways and adjacent properties. However,
the impact on existing driveways, parking, landscaping inlets and other related improvements, along with the need to acquire numerous temporary construction easements from the adjacent
property owners, made this alternative less desirable. The following is a description ofeach. Alternative 1 -Both Directions: This alternative would provide two lanes in each direction
with a continuous left tum lane, leaving two lanes to be constructed during Steps 2, 3 and 4. Step 1 • Remove necessary street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping. • Install necessary
temporary street lights and traffic lights. • Remove the center median and install temporary asphalt. Step 2 • Move traffic to allow for the construction ofthe first two outside lanes.
Step 3 • Once the first two outside lanes are constructed, move traffic to these lanes and construct the opposite outside two lanes. Step 4 • Move traffic to the two outside lanes on
each side and construct the center lanes and median. • Install permanent street lights, traffic lights, and median landscaping. • During this step there would not be a continuous left
tum lane. 00·238 Midway Road Design Report 7 June 2002 
----------------Midway Road Reconstruction Be It Line Road to Lindbergh Drive ) AL TERNAT IVE 1 325'325'. 16' . o. 5' I 10' 10' 10' .5' Step 1 l l l '( 􀁾J'I' 1'1' 1'1' I0I I0______________
------------__11 I ... ____ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀠34' 13' 11.5' 22.5' 􀀱􀀮􀀵􀁾􀀠10' 10' 13' I 10' 110, 􀁾􀀧􀀠Step 2 I' , I ' I 􀁾􀀠II t I t I􀁾􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀠_
___ 􀁾􀁁............, '-----------..... . ) 225'. 115' 13' 115'. . .225' 4' 10,1 10' 13' 1';'1';' I '-JI I' II f --5'􀁾􀀠Step 3 , 􀁾􀀠NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY
ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP , -:::J EXISTING PAVEMENT 
Midway Road Reconstruction Be It Line Road to Lindbergh Drive AL TERNATIVE 2 32.5' 16' 32.5' Step 1 0,5'1 'I' I TI T􀁾􀁝􀀠􀀲􀁾J';'1'1' I 't lOs' o...--------------.....__􀁾􀀺􀀠------------__"
t ___ 􀁾􀀠___________ ..... ----------____ I 34' 13' 34' 1, 10' 11' 11' 10' 4'', , t t n... _____ ------􀁾􀀠L ___ ---------Step 2 , ) 34' 13' 34' 4' 10,1 11' 11' ,. , tIStep 3 , ,4 10'
l'--' t 325'. 325'16' . NOTE:WJDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASP HAL T ___ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP -_ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEPj 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀠-J
EXIST ING PAVEMENT􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠EXHIBIT 2 􀀿􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠" O.!L, 10' 10' 10' 2'f-= 2' 􀁾􀀭10' 10' Step 4
, , , t t 10' 0.5' t 
--------------------------.;; g 0. 􀁾• /{!I 􀁾􀀠E /N N 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠/􀁾􀀠Midway Road Reconstruction Be It Line Road to Lindbergh Drive AL TERNATIVE 3 325'. 16' 325'• 10' 10' 10' .5'0.5, ,
, , 2'-J ';'[';' ['1' [0Step 1 [ I I ('n________ ____ 􀁾􀀠-------------__0 ,--------------------------_1 34' 13' . .225' 115' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11' 11'0.5, --:3' , ,, I ,Step 2 t [' t[
[ I t I , 􀁾n. -----------------L -􀀭􀀭􀁾) 34' 13' 115' 11' 115'.. 11' 11' 11' I' I I l, t , 1\. __ L ____ -----------------11' I 11' t I tJ,">' 1:. 10' t ----0.5'0.5' Step 3 34' 13'
. .115' 225' 0.5'11' 11' 11 ' 10' 10'11' [ el'.5',., ,Step 4 t t[ tI I t 􀁉􀁾􀀮1\.. _____L _________ " (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY
ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP \ __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP/􀁾􀀺..::.-.:..􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 􀀱􀀺􀁉􀁾􀁩􀀠i=J EXHIBIT 3 i 
Midway Road Reconstruction Be It Line Road to Lindbergh Drive ALTERNATIVE 3 (CONTINUED) 11.5' 22.5' 13' 34' 3 4'1'; 1',' II' 1i ';' 1'1' 1'1' I0.5Step 5 􀀧􀁉􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺
􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠.5' IaStep 6 ) 0.5' 0.5'-Step 7 115' 11' 115' 13' 34'. . 10' ..r 􀀲􀀮􀁾􀀠11'1 11' 11' 11' 11' I I I, , , t t tI,• --• J--225'. 115' 13'. 34' 10' 10'
2' 2' 11' I ," I 11 ' I '1' I t-= 􀁾􀀭, , , t 32.5' 16' 32.5' 8 0.5' I 10' 10' '1' I 2' 2' 1'1' I 'I' I '1' I 0.5' Step I I r -, , NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: TEMPORARY
ASPHALT PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP --PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP :-􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENTi I:I􀁾i i =1 􀁾􀁾________________________________________􀀽􀁅􀁘􀁾􀁈
􀁾􀁉􀁂􀁾􀁉􀁔􀁾􀀳__􀁾􀀠5 
Section 4 Construction Sequencing and Trqffic Control Alternative 1: Pros and Cons Pros • Removes left turning vehicles from through traffic lanes • No splits in same direction traffic
• Curb offsets in Steps 1 and 2 Cons • 10-foot lanes • Left turns in Step 3 in very few locations • Vertical panels in Step 3 do not provide positive protection from pavement drop off
• No curb offsets in Step 3 • Some driveways may be closed temporarily Alternative 2 --Both Directions: This alternative proposes to construct three lanes oftraffic while maintaining
two lanes oftraffic in each direction during Steps 2 and 3. No continuous left turn lane is provided. Step I • Remove necessary street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping. • Install
necessary temporary street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping. • Remove the center median and install temporary asphalt. Step 2 • Move traffic to the outer three southbound lanes
and the temporary median asphalt while the northbound lanes are constructed. Step 3 • Reverse traffic for the construction ofthe southbound lanes. Step 4 • Construct the median and turning
lanes. • Install permanent street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping. Alternative 2: Pros and Cons Pros • Lower construction costs likely • Shorter duration project likely 00-238
Midway Road Design Reporl Cons • Left and right turning movements will impede through traffic • Lower capacity than other two options (due to turns) 8 June 2001 
Section 4 Construction Sequencing and Traffic Control Pros Cons • Positive protection for pavement • IO-foot lanes drop offs • No splits in same direction traffic • No curb offsets in
Step 3 • Curb offsets in Steps I and 2 • Good signing and sign maintenance is critical Alternative 3 --Both Directions This alternative provides three lanes in each direction at all
times. During some steps ofthe sequencing for this alternative, traffic flow in one direction would be split by traffic control devices. No continuous turning lanes would be provided.
Step I • Remove necessary street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping. • Install necessary temporary street lights and traffic lights. • Remove the center median and install temporary
asphalt and traffic control devices. Step 2 • Move traffic to facilitate one lane ofconstruction. Step 3 • Open the new lane to traffic and close the next lane for construction. Steps
4 through 7 • Repeat this step until all the lanes are constructed. 􀁾􀀠• Construct the median and turning lanes. • Install permanent street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping.
Alternative 3: Pros and Cons Pros • Allows fur 3 lanes oftraffic each direction throughout construction • Curb offsets in Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 Of)..238 Midway Road Design Report 9 Cons
• Splits same direction traffic during construction process causing safety concerns and potential to confuse motorists • Vertical panels do not provide positive protection for pavement
drop off • lO-foot lanes in most steps • No curb offsets in Steps 1 and 6 • Longer duration construction likely • More costly construction likely June }OO} 
Section 4 Construction Sequencing and Tralfie' Control Recommended Alternative: Alternatives 1 and 2 are preferred to Alternative 3 because they have less sequencing steps which reduces
the construction time, Alternative 1 is preferred over Alternative 2 because the continuous tum lane will provide for better traffic flow during most ofthe construction. Consequently,
Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative. Lindbergh Drive to Keller Springs Road North ofLindbergh Drive, the construction ofthe northbound and southbound lanes will be performed separately
for all three phases of construction. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the lane sequencing alternatives that were considered. Alternative 1 -One Direction: 1hls alternative, which follows
the same concept as Alternative I -Both Directions, would provide two lanes in each direction with a continuous left tum lane during Step 2, leaving two lanes under construction. Step
1 • Remove necessary street lights, traffic lights, and landscaping. • Install necessary temporary street lights and traffic lights. • Remove the center median and install temporary
asphalt. Step 2 • Move traffic to allow for the construction ofthe two outside lanes. Step 3 • Move traffic to the two new lanes and construct the remaining lane and left tum lanes.
• Install permanent street lights, traffic lights and median landscaping. The pros and cons for this alternative, which includes the expense ofremoving and replacing the median, are
similar to those identified for Alternative 1 -Both Directions. Alternative 2 -One Direction: 1hls alternative would provide two lanes of traffic in each direction, allowing for the
construction oftbree lanes. No continuous left tum lane would be provided. Step I • Remove necessary street lights, traffic lights and landscaping. • Install necessary temporary street
lights and traffic lights. • Remove the center median and install temporary asphalt. Step 2 • Move traffic to allow for the construction ofall three lanes. Step 3 • Move traffic to the
new pavement. • • Install permanent street lights, traffic lights, and median landscaping. The pros and cons for this alternative, which includes the expense ofrernoving and replacing
the median, are similar to those identified for Alternative 1 -Both Directions. 00·238 MidwC(J' Road Design &por/10 June 2002 
Section 4 Construction Sequencing and Tro,(fic 'Control Alternative 3 -One Direction: This alternative does not require the removal ofthe median. In the direction of construction, two
10' lanes of traffic would be provided without turning lanes, leaving one lane to be constructed at the time. Step 1 • Move traffic from the outside lane to remaining two lanes, providing
10' traffic lanes. • Demolish and construct outside lane. Steps 2 and 3 • Move one lane oftraffic to new surface and demolish and construct next lane. • Repeat until all lanes and turning
lanes are constructed. The pros and cons for this alternative, which does not require the median removal, are similar to those identified for Alternative 3 --Both Directions. Alternative
3 is the preferred alternative because it saves the considerable expense of removal and replacement ofthe median, the street lighting, and the landscaping. In addition, no temporary
lighting is required. \ ) GO·238 Midway Road Design II£porl II June 2002 
------------Midway Road Reconstruction Lindbergh Drive to Ke Iler Springs Road AL T E R NAT I V E 1 32.5' 16' 32.5' 0.5' 10' 10' 10' -Z' :t.. 10' 10' 10·1 0.5' Step 1 [' I '[I [ q J
t [ t [I [ L_____________ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭I ___ --------------, 34' 13' . .115' 225' 10' 110, 4'13'1􀀮􀁾􀀠Step 2 t I t I 􀁾􀀮[' '1' [ '1' [ 􀁾􀀠 I __
J\ ,􀁦􀁌􀁾􀀠__ --------L __ ____ 32.5' 14.5' 11.5' 22.5' 2' 10' 10' 0.5'"'􀀱􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀱􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀽􀀠Step 3 M:1';' 1';' 1'; 1􀁾􀀧􀀠t t 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁉􀁾�
�􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀭....-... NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀺􀁊􀀠EXISTING
PAVEMENT 
Midway Road Reconstruction Lindbergh Drive to Ke Iler Springs Road AL TERNATIVE 2 32.5' 16' 32.5' Step 1 0.5' I' '1' 1'1' I T(' 􀁾,1 ',' 1',' 1'1' I0.5 􀁾􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀠􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭.-I
____________ ----------􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭--------_____ -_--"1 "--􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾L -------------I 34' 13' 34' 1, 10' 11' 11' 10' 4''Step 2 , , t t A 325'. 16' 325'. Step
3 0.5' 1'1' 'I"l' I T'I 􀁾􀀧􀀠2' 10' 10'".. t t a _____ --------!L ______________ : 1 10' 0.5' t NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION
THIS STEP •ADDisON __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁊􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT :;: EXHIBIT 5 􀀳􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠
5 
----------Midway Road Reconstruction Lindbergh Drive to Ke Iler Springs Road ) AL TERNATIVE 3 Step 1 34' 13' 22' 12' 0.5' 11' 11' 11' 􀁯􀀮􀁾􀀠10' 10' 2'-= l l l 0.5' t t n. __ --------􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�L ___ --------------, Step 2 34' 13' 115' 10 5' 12'. . 0.5 I 11' 11' 11' 0.5' 10' ..1' 1&.:. l I , /l I t 􀁮􀀮􀁟􀁾􀀠_______ :-_:::j r--:_L _________ 10' t o.5' • 34' 13' 115' 225')
-2' , , , 0.5' . . 0.5, 11' 11' 11' 10' 10' 0.5''=-..,. Step 3 t t/' //I 1'1. ____ 􀁾􀀮􀀠L ___ ----------n • (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGEl NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY
ASPHALT ___ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP ADDisoN __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP j ,-_:::J EXISTING PAVEMENT 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠EXHIBIT 6 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠/5 
i Section 5 Storm Sewer Analysis As an extension ofthe scope ofthis design report, GBW performed an analysis of the storm sewer system along Midway Road from Belt Line Road to Keller
Springs Road. Exhibits 7 and 8 have been included in this section to show the drainage areas and the existing and proposed improvements to the storm sewer system. To analyze the existing
and proposed storm sewer system, a spreadsheet was developed based upon the principles outlined in the TownofAddison's Drainage Criteria Manual. The results are attached in Appendices B and C. The following is a summary ofthe analysis ofthe existing system, and the proposed modifications,
which will bring the existing system up to current Town standards. 5.1 Existing StOlID Sewer System The existing Midway Road storm sewer system between Belt Line Road and Keller Springs
Road consists offive separate storm sewer lines. Lines A, C and D outfall into a 9' x 5' concrete box culvert located just south ofthe DART owned railroad crossing, while Line Line B
outfalls into Line A. No plans were found for Line E which drains one inlet in the northbound lanes just upstream of the Keller Springs intersection. As a result, it was not possible
to analyze this system. The following is a detailed description ofthe four lines. South of9' x 5' Box Culvert, North ofBelt Line Road • Line A: 158 linear feet of30" RCP intercepts flow
from the northbound lanes via one 10' inlet located in a low-point of the roadway; outfalls into box culvert. • LineB: 19linearfeetof21" RCP, 303 linear feet of24" RCP intercepts flow
from the north and southbound lanes via 1-20' inlet and 2-10' inlets; outfulls into Line A. North of9' x 5' Box Culvert. South ofWright Road • Line C: 420 linear feet of24" RCP, 337
linear feet of30" RCP, 163 linear feet of36" RCP, 387 linear feet of42" RCP, 644 linear feet of48" RCP, 691 linear feet of2 barrel 42" RCP, 139 linear feet of2 barrel 48" CMP; 2,781
total linear footage ofstorm sewer intercepts flow from the north and southbound lanes via 1-20' inlet, 21-10' inlets and 1-6' inlet; outfalls into box culvert. • Line D: 136 linear
feet of24" RCP; 166 linear feet of40" CMP; intercepts flow from the northbound lanes via one 20' iulet located in a low-point of the roadway; outfalls into box culvert. 00·238 Midway
RoadDesign Repor/12 June 2002 
Section 5 Storm Sewer Analysis 9' X 5' Box Culvert The 9' x 5' box culvert was designed on a 1.25% slope. Itis approximately 165 feet long with two 30 degree bends located approximately
10 to 15 feet from each end to align the culvert with the incoming and outgoing channels. These channels are trapezoidal with 2: 1 side slopes and a 10 foot flat bottom. The bottom and
the side slopes, up to a depth of4 feet, are lined with concrete riprap. The downstream channel has a slope ofapproximately 1.0%. Exhibit 9 shows the as-builts for the box culvert. The
plans do not provide a hydraulic grade line elevation through the box or a summary of the computations performed to develop the flow. A tailwater of616.12 for the box is provided; however,
the storm event and flow used to determine this tailwater was not indicated. The existing 9' x 5' box culvert carries the flow from a local drainage ditch that intercepts the drainage
east of Midway Road. According to the as-built plans, the box culvert was designed to carry a a flow of approximately 700 cm; however, GBW's drainage calculations show that a loo-year
flow at this culvert for a fully developed watershed of approximately 1,334 cfs. 'This flow was developed in conjunction with the drainage calculations for Arapaho Road Phase 2. To determine
the tailwater for the storm sewer analysis, it was necessary to determine the hydraulics ofthe existing box culvert. The Federal Highway Adruiuistration's Culvert Analysis program, HY-8,
was used, however, HY-8 does not take into account the occurrence of backwater in the channel. Midway Road is approximately 4 feet higher than the top of the box in elevation with a
sloping embankment from the parkway to the top of the box. The top of the channel bank immediately upstream ofMidway Road ends about one foot below the top ofthe box; consequently, any
backwater in the channel would not exceed the height ofthe culvert before it overflows the channel banks. The overflow storage area is sufficiently large that no overflow over Midway
Road Road has beenreported from backwater in the channel. Based on the HY-8 analysis, overtopping of the roadway occurs around 500 cfs. The box culvert is under iulet control during
flows greater than 100 cfs. Based on this analysis, the box culvert does not have the capacity to carry the flows from a 100-year flood event. The results of the analysis are provided
in Appendix D. It should be noted, however, that an additional box culvert is proposed at this location in conjunction with the Arapaho 2 project. The existing system was analyzed based
on the geometry of the existing roadway and the proposed roadway. Under both conditions, many of the iulets along the northbound lanes were undersized causing excessive carryover between
inlets the allowable gutter depth along the majority of the northbound lanes to be exceeded. The analysis appears to indicate that for the majority ofthe system, the actual pipe system
is sized adequately to carry the flow; however, due to inadequate inlets in the existing system, much ofthe water is currently detained in the streets and slowly released into the pipe
system. 1)(}-238 Midway Road Design Reporf 13 June 1002 
Section 5 Storm Sewer Analysis 5.2 Proposed Stonn Sewer System Improvements Because the analysis shows that, for the majority ofthe system, the pipes are adequate to carry the 100-year
flow, the proposed modifications focus primarily on new inlets and the extension of the system in select locations. The following is a summary ofthe stonn drainage modifications that
are recommended. These modifications have been illustrated in Exhibit 8. LineA: Expand the existing 10' curb inlet to a 20' curb inlet. LineB: Replace 108 linear feetof24" RCP with 30"
RCP beginning at Inlet/Lateral B3 and ending at the tie-in to Line A. LineC: Extend Line C north on Midway with 330 linear feet of24" RCP and add 3 10' curb inlets. Replace or expand
II -10' curb inlets with 14' and 20' curb inlets, depending on the location. Remove inlets C2, C23, and C24 from Line C and connect to Line D (see below). Add a special inlet opening
to drain area lOA prior to the runoff reaching the street. LineD: Extend Line D north on Midway with 470 linear feet of30" RCP and connect inlets C2, C23 and C24 to Line D. Inlet C2
should be expanded to a 20' curb inlet. An additional I 0' curb inlet on Lindbergh should be added to decrease the flow depth in the gutter. This would include an additional 200 linear
feet of 21 " RCP. One 10' curb inlet should be added to Line D south ofLindbergh on Midway. \ .' 􀁏􀁏􀁾􀀲􀀳􀀸􀀠Midway Road Design Report 14 June 2002 
) " /' 100 0---. LEGEND: ---DRAINAGE AREA OlVlDE flOW DIRECTION i \ 􀀬􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭.. 􀀭􀀭􀀯􀁾􀀭, , -: i I : \,' 􀁾􀀮􀀯􀀠\ i j 'J :: : i, i:! i 1°f , :! I I ,I, l 1 /' x § //EXHIBIT 7
􀀱􀁑􀁬􀀱􀁒􀁬􀁾􀀱􀁉􀀱􀁍􀁾􀁀􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀡􀁒􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁛􀁦􀀹􀀠MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ) 
:'''ft' "'''{<ITt).'' INLET B2......'-"'z"'''''' I DRAiNAGE AREA l! EXts'llNG 10' CURS U4u;t,...... ) ! 􀀺􀁾􀀠i 40 80---.0 r,,,􀁩􀁾􀀧􀁾I I 􀀧􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭i i :: 􀀻􀀻􀀭􀀡􀀡􀁬􀁕􀀧􀁾􀀠lOI:f1'
n:Sl"t"Ii. O<Inll/II,r-1I 􀁾􀀠It. ) NEW INl£T -Engineers, Inc......oE-FLOW DIRECTION .. 􀁃􀀧􀁾􀁉􀀮􀂷􀁾􀀠:.f'II'; 􀀢􀁮􀁲􀀺􀁬􀀱􀁏􀁾􀀠0'6I.. ',':'1.;<; 􀀧􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀠􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀠PROP.
30" Rep LEGEND: EXIST. UNCHANG(O STORM SE\Y£R UNES PROP. 􀀳􀁥􀁾􀀠ReP ---------EXIST. UNCHANGED INLET -EXIST. INlET W/"NEW SIZE c:::::.....,.;.... :..􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠A.TTACH LATERALS TO UNE
D. PLUG CONNECTION TO UNE C 1m.ET C23 DRAINAGE AREA 􀁾􀀠EXlSTItffi 10' CURB III . ;; ICMPli:l. mnm!l.'i Hk 􀁩􀁬􀀺􀀾􀁮􀁾􀀬􀀠1<: ;;!In 􀀬􀁉􀀨􀁋􀀤􀁛􀀮􀁉􀁉􀀮􀀮􀁜􀀧􀁾􀀠􀁵􀀻􀀮􀁾􀁮􀁋􀁉􀁜􀁃􀀩􀀧􀀠•
vnl",w 􀁜􀁴􀀾􀁾􀁲􀁲􀀻􀁉􀀮􀀾􀀧􀀢􀀠'U'-','''''<>, C",:OM 􀁾􀀮􀀠EXiST. STOR\roI SEWER UN£: W/NEW SIZE 40 scale EXHIBIT 8 (SHEET 1 OF 3) 􀁾􀀱􀁒􀁬􀀨􀁑􀀩􀁾􀀨􀁑􀀩􀁾􀁾􀀱􀁑􀀩􀀠􀁉􀁑􀀩􀁉􀁒􀁬􀁢􀁜􀁏􀁏􀁏􀁢􀁜􀁀􀁾􀀠
􀁏􀁉􀁍􀁬􀁾􀁉􀁒􀁬􀀨􀁑􀀩􀁗􀁾􀁉􀁍􀁬􀁾􀁏􀁏􀁵􀁾􀀠MIDWA Y ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 
) 1m£T C16 INL£T C7 ORAINAGE AREA 18 ORAlHAGE AREA 12 EXfSTlt.lG to' CURa WILTI<IJ'""" I'••􀁾􀀠,',,"'1< '" A«d,,,",, ••EXISTING '0' CURB INLET -'':lI.-M""","" 􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀠---.• 4. scale
o UNE C o o o + +-.::=: ------------------------------------􀀭􀁾o 􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠-« ICI1 w W z z :::J :::J I 􀁕􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀫􀀭􀀷􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠.
.... ",,!-,..o:-< .-« ::::E INLET CB '-, 􀀬􀁾􀀠DRAINAGE: AREA 21 DISTIKG 10' CURS INLET I.::, " 1M Il iMl"l " 􀁜􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀁩􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭INlET (;26 ORAlNAG£ AREA 31 PROPOSEO 10'
CURB INLET ) 􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁴􀁾􀁔􀀧􀁏􀀬􀀠)'1 .....)ll'A.,. COlIllT .\Mlnilli' '0' W;)",(l, r<:!.<Jr, ,,"j 􀁾􀀢􀀺􀀮􀀠"""'. ;'1: 􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠􀀨􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀮􀁮􀀩􀀠In".,,,n (:GIO'A1¥' 􀁬􀀻􀀧􀁜􀁬􀀩􀀼􀁉􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁔􀁬􀀭􀀢
INlET CTS 􀀬􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀠"""',"", "".ORAINA{:£ AREA 20 ,110''''';) EXISTING to' CURB INlfl -------, INLET Cl DRA1NAC AREA. 19 EXISTINC 10' CURB INLET PROPOSE U· CURa INLET ,, INLET Clg I
DRAINAGE AREA 2.1 O!ISflMC 10' CURB INLET PROPOstO 1-4' CURS INLET mflO 􀁾􀀱􀁬􀁬􀀱􀀧􀁌􀁓􀁦􀁉􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀠AlIW¢ItI" PAR.ING !..OT GRATE iNLET 􀁉􀁓􀁬􀀾􀁉􀀡􀁾􀀧􀁔􀁉􀁕􀀮􀁵􀀮􀀠DlmJW"l' WI,.!.O,
1":. tinASSUMED ..oT FlJNCTION1NG ORAlNAGE AREA 30 LEGEND; fiROf'. 36" Rep... ".............. E)(IST. STOR.. SEWER UNE wI 􀁾􀂣􀁗􀀠S1ZE PROP. 30" RCP NEW STORIol StwER UNE EXIST. 􀁕􀁈􀁃􀁈􀁁􀁾􀁃􀁲􀁯􀀠I
NtEr EXiST. 1HU:T WI NEW SIZE -NEW INLET -flOW DJlIECTlON IIf.J.T'!rl!)n 􀁬􀀾􀀱􀁊􀁒􀁔􀁉􀀱􀁾􀁜􀁉􀀡􀁉􀀩􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀬􀀧􀀠􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀠""""" '" " 1t.1(l; f INLET t27 ORAIIoI"G[ AREA l.l PROf'OSEO
10' CURS INI.ET : ---------------------,,--------___J: 􀁉􀀧􀀭􀁊􀀭􀁾􀀠 II 􀀱􀁉􀀱􀀡􀀧􀁯􀀧􀁉􀁔􀁉􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠TQ 􀁨􀁕􀁛􀁬􀁊􀁓􀁏􀁾􀀠ATnl'illlT ..L m,FC. PI' EXHIBIT B (SHEET 2 OF 3) ! 􀁾􀁪􀁩􀀿􀀩􀀱􀁒􀁬􀁀􀁛􀁬􀀳�
�􀁀􀁾􀁾􀁛􀁰􀀩􀀠􀁛􀁐􀀩􀀱􀁒􀁬􀁌􀀥􀁴􀁬􀁾􀁌􀀥􀁀􀁾􀀠􀁮􀁾􀁪􀁩􀀿􀀩􀁉􀁒􀁬􀁀􀁗􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁎􀁬􀀧􀁩􀁔􀁾􀀠5 MIDWA Y ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 6 i 􀁾􀀠N,EngIneers, Inc. a a 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠 
------------------) , I 8 , 􀀨􀁾, , //11-1 Iln!:t IIGN . (IF TffiISD... ,Ml'i:.=. /m:Of<ll: UU.\ ''''" 􀁾􀁉􀁟􀀮􀀠􀀢􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀢􀀠mouYItt).<.u "'Yf>o", 􀁲􀀽􀁲􀁾􀁮􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀴􀀭􀁮􀀭􀁮􀁪􀁌􀁮􀁬􀁩􀂷􀁟􀁾􀀠, <{ 􀀱􀀧􀁾􀀠PMrnnn:lI. 11>"'. 􀀧􀁾􀁬􀀮􀀠tf\\,j. 11t ""<l'l , .," 􀀮􀁾􀀠'. 􀁾􀀭",-' """,';-' 2 f.'Wtll[!'f 􀁍􀁉􀁙􀁾􀀻􀀠",,'''''';)
o a + o If) <i. f-<fl w :z -' :r: u I<l: 2 LEGEND: 􀀮􀁾􀀠EXIST. UNCHANGtn STORM SEWER UN£S PROP. :SSw Rep.................... EXIST. STOOM SEWER UHIi: wi NEW srz:£ PROP. 30" RCP NEW
STORN SEWtR UNE) EXIST. UNCHANGED tffllT EXIST. INLET WI NEW SIZE -NEW INLET -flOW DJRrrCTtON I I , I 􀁾􀁾___ • ______ .!!r.!. _____ .. ____ 􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁮􀀭􀁴􀀭􀁾􀀭,
. , I )oI1!.>'''Y rAft\: "'OIml II lUI.. 􀁾􀀩􀀬􀁏􀀧..􀁾􀁟􀀠N: 11"'" , " " ''I;' s'Cn \'£ Y'3,1'".('"0 "H INL£T £1 DRAINAGE AREA 24 EXISTING 10' CURB uun (PROPOstO< CONOITIONS NOT ANALY'ZEO)
􀁎􀁑􀁉􀁅􀁾􀀠;L>qj IiU'IAT <W l<iWl1!'-j,,1r eofiTilF CUT I}t !Jfl.Tl..!!\!1: 􀁾􀁕􀁦􀀡􀀡􀁾􀀩􀁦􀀢􀀧􀁕􀁔_. NOT SHOWN I,. ACTUAL lOCAlt(IN AS-SUILTS ON THIS UN£: COULD NOT liE LOCATED FOR
COMPlETE ANALYSIS or THE EXIST. CAPACIT'f llNE E ./tlilk/: 1>\ 􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀢􀁜􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀠-',. EXHIBIT 8 (SHEET 3 OF 3) 􀁾􀁛􀁒􀁬􀀨􀁑􀀩􀁾􀀨􀁑􀀩􀀤􀁾􀁛􀁑􀁬􀀠􀁛􀁑􀁬􀁛􀁒􀁬􀁾􀁏􀁉􀁍􀁾􀁀􀁾􀀠􀁏􀁾􀁾􀁛􀁒􀁬􀀨􀁑􀀩􀁗􀁾􀁾􀁾
􀁉􀁎􀁬􀁉􀁊􀀤􀀠MIDWA Y ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IfF. Gn>mham. Bwga&W__,.jEngineers. Inc_ ! 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠1i 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠 
Section 6 Opinion ofProbable Cost Basedonthe recommended project phasing and construction sequencing, an Opinion ofProbable Cost has been prepared. Tables 1 through 3 contain the Opinions
ofProbable Cost for Phases 1,2, and 3, respectively. Table 4 includes an Opinion of Probable Cost for the entire roadway, given that it is constructed as one project. These costs, which
include a 10% contingency, are shown below: Phase 1: $4,300,251.56 Phase 2: $1,073,233.92 Phase 3: $1,668,715.62 Entire Project: $6,682,583.60 As previously noted, the current funding
available for Phase 1 ofthe project is $4.75 million, which includes design and landscaping. The following assumptions were made when preparing the Opinions ofProbable Costs for this
project: • The cost of entire project constructed at one time is less than the sum of the three phases, due to economies ofscale. • Proposed improvements to the existing storm sewer
system as outlined in this report have been included. • Concrete sidewalks will be replaced when located directly adjacent to the existing curb. • Median brick pavers will be used in
areas where the median width is less than 3'. • Coordination with DART regarding the railroad crossing gates will be required during the design and construction process. • Coordination
with Oncor will be required for the removal and replacement ofthe street lights and installation ofthe new traffic signals. • A 10-inch Portland cement pavement section with dowelled
joints on a crushed limestone base and a compacted subgrade has been utilized. • A minimum pavement strength of650 psi has been specified. • A thicker pavement section has been used
in lieu of lime stabilization in order to reduce the construction time. 00-238 Midway Rood Design Report 15 June 2002 
TABLE 1 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PHASE 1 MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION NORTHBOUND LANES FROM BELT LINE ROAD TO KELLER SPRINGS (5,700 LINEAR FEET) SOUTHBOUND LANES FROM BELT LINE
ROAD TO LINDBERG (1,500 LINEAR FEET) ADDISON, TEXAS 21 
TABLE 2 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PHASE 2 MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SOUTHBOUND LANES FROM BOYINGTON TO KELLER SPRINGS (1,100 LINEAR FEET) ADDISON, TEXAS 3 4 '0';35 ...􀁾􀀠ROC
(;( ITFC LES 1,700 􀁾􀀠34 PULL BOXES FOR l HT POLES "'L_!.fEN"" 􀁾􀀤􀀴􀀧􀀽􀁴􀀭􀁟􀁾􀀺􀁟􀀫􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀮16 =I 􀁅􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁲􀁮􀁕􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀁾􀁅􀀠iiii I SIGNS. DES, ; CON) KUL ADJUST ; UTILITIES L
􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁃􀁓􀁩􀁇􀁎􀁁􀁩􀀺􀁓􀁁􀁾􀀠􀀤􀁾􀁉􀁾􀀧􀀺􀁌􀁓􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁎􀁾􀀠$5,1 4 􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁌􀁁􀀨􀀮􀀻􀁅􀁾􀁁􀁎􀁾􀀠$40 . 􀁾􀁕􀁄􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁁􀁁􀀠'M 10 % WI'" TOTAL S1 􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀠22
!fay l()(j:i 
TABLE 3 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PHASE 3 MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SOUTHBOUND LANES FROM LINDBERG TO BOYINGTON (2,500 LINEAR FEET) ADDISON, TEXAS 􀁟􀀠􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀷􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁕__RB
____________________􀀫􀀭􀁾􀁾____􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀵􀀠12. 􀀱􀀭􀀷􀀮􀁈􀀬􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁖􀁟􀀠S1, , "01--,;.11'􀀱􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀁟􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁉􀀧􀀠-, 􀁾􀀠. CC W'ffi􀀧􀀢􀁕􀀭􀀭􀁃􀁾􀀵􀀴􀀱􀀺􀀳􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠-,
􀀧􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀠􀁾􀁁􀁌􀁋􀁻􀀵􀀧􀁬􀀠51 􀁾􀀺􀁉􀀭􀁟􀀢􀀢􀀬􀀴􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀬􀀱􀀲􀀲􀀧􀁓􀀺􀁩􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀱􀁟􀀭􀀬􀀤􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀮􀀴􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀠16 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠:It 􀁾__-,#-3 1 12_+_.,$=7, 1, OJ 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁌􀁬􀁾􀁖􀁅􀁏􀁃􀁾􀀠􀀻􀁧􀀺�
�􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁧􀀺􀁴􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀡􀀽􀀽􀁴􀀽􀁾􀁩􀁴􀀤􀀲􀀵􀀧􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁁􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁾􀁕􀁔􀁾􀀠1r 􀁾􀀠􀁲􀁒􀁾􀁋􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀬􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀤􀁾􀀺􀀠j1 ;(;KSODC
; SOLID WHI1 LASTI(; 􀁓􀁔􀁏􀁐􀁾􀀤" JO 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁟􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀬􀀺􀁦􀀻􀀠I SOUD WHITE""i'H'ERM( : STRIPE 0, 􀀱􀀽􀀽􀁴􀀽􀀺􀀽􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀀧􀁗􀁾􀁾􀁆􀁉􀁊􀁌􀁾􀁃􀁬􀀧􀁩􀁖􀁅􀁔􀁙􀁐􀁉􀀠V-(; (;ERM (;
BUTTON 53,40 6-. s'-wHii'lfRj , BAR TILES 􀁾􀀠55 $825, 􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀺􀀧􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀢􀀢􀀠3Hi "ASsEMEiL IT 􀁾􀀠8 $: 000V¥POlEE]'Ri'iffiC STI 'E $2,' -.-k 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀳􀀱􀁾􀀠􀀧􀀴􀀧􀁙􀁅􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀠􀁉􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀮􀁴􀁬􀀠m
􀀢􀁉􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀠",. 􀀬􀀢􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠· r 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠6 Mayl001 
TABLE 4 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION· ENTIRE PROJECT BELT LINE ROAD TO KELLER SPRINGS (5.700 LINEAR FEET) ADDISON. TEXAS 21 May200) 
Section 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the infonnation presented within this design report, GBW's conclusions and recommendations are presented below. • Extensive research
was carried out by GBW regarding the value of using Cement Treated Penneable Base in the pavement section for the reconstruction of Midway Road. It was detennined, however, that a crushed
limestone base would be more appropriate. (See Appendix A and Appendix C). • Research was also carried out by GBW regarding the possible installation ofa ductbank in conjunction with
the pavement reconstruction. This research, which is summarized in Appendix B, lead to the conclusion that the Town should not install a ductbank. • The pavement distress along the northbound
lanes is more pronounced than along the southbound lanes. GBW detennined that the cross-slope on the northbound lanes, which is generally less than on the southbound lanes, increases
the likelihood that surface water will pond on the pavement surface. Subsequently, a higher infiltration rate of moisture into the subgrade under the northbound lanes, through pavement
joints and cracks, has increased the rate ofpavement deterioration relative to the southbound lanes. (See Appendix C) • According to Town staff, $4.75 million in bond funds is available
for this project, which includes payment for engineering services, landscape and irrigation replacement, temporary lighting, in addition to all other project related expenses. An Opinion
of Probable Cost prepared by GBW revealed that the available bond money was significantly less than that total funds required to reconstruct the entire project at one time. Consequently,
it was apparent that, unless additional funds were found, the project would need to be phased. • In conjunction with the Town's staff, it was determined that the project will be constructed
in three phases which are described in Section 3. The limits ofPhase I, which were set to allow this phase to be constructed with the available bond funds, replaces the pavement in in
the poorest condition. The phase includes reconstruction ofall the northbound lanes and a portion ofthe southbound lanes from Belt Line Road to Lindbergh Drive. • Phase 2 replaces the
southbound lanes from Boyington Drive to Keller Springs Drive while Phase 3 replaces the southbound lanes from Lindbergh Drive to Boyington Drive. • Once the construction phasing had
been determined, consideration was given to the construction sequencing and traffic control. Section 4 describes three alternatives which were evaluated for two construction scenarios:
Belt Line Road to Lindbergh Drive where the northbound and southbound lanes will be reconstructed together, and Lindbergh Drive to Keller Springs Road, where the lanes in one direction
will be constructed separately from the lanes in the other direction. • From Belt Line Road to Lindbergh Drive, the recommended alternative involves removing the median and installing
temporary asphalt pavement so that two lanes of traffic can be 1)()·238 Midway Road Des/grl Report Report 16 Jtme 1002 
Section 7 Conclusions and Recommendations maintained in each direction during construction, along with a continuous left-turn lane during most construction steps. • From Lindbergh Drive
to Keller Springs Road, the recommended alternative involves reconstructed each lane ofthe three lanes in one direction separately without the removal of the median. Two lanes of traffic
are still maintained in the direction of flow with this alternative. • As a supplement to the initial scope ofthis report, GBW performed an analysis ofthe existing storm sewer system
in Midway Road to determine whether or not it meets current Town of Addison drainage criterial. This analysis concluded that there are several locations, as detailed in Section 5, where
the existing system should be modified or extended. • It is recommended that these storm sewer system improvements be made in conjunction with the Midway Road pavement reconstruction
with the exception ofthe culvert improvements which are scheduled to be made in conjunction with the Arapaho Road Phase 3 project. • When the funds are allocated for the construction
ofPhase 1 ofMidway Road, the Town will need to authorize GBW to perform Phase Two ofthe design contract. This work will include completing the preliminary set ofconstruction plans which
have been prepared as ifthe entire project was being constructed at one time. 00-238 Midway Road Design Report 17 June 2002 
APPENDIX A GENERAL NOTES ON CEMENT TREATED PERMEABLE BASE 
\, DESIGN MEMO Engineers. Inc. Date: April 2, 2001 Job No. 00-238 From: GBW Job Name: Midway Road/Arapaho Road To: Steve Chutchian, P.E.; Jerry Holder, P.E. Re: General Notes on Cement
Treated Permeable Base BASE COURSE NOTES General • Ifconstruction traffic will be allowed on the permeable base, cement stabilization is generally needed to avoid the substantial cost
of constructing a temporary adjacent haul road for side delivery of concrete to the paver. Aggregate • Quality of crushed aggregates is the single most important factor for the stability
of a permeable base. Aggregate should be stored, handled, and placed in a manner to keep segregation to a minimum. • The most popular aggregate gradations are AASlITO No. 57 and No.
67, which are characterized by having very little material finer that No.8 sieve. • The aggregate material should have at least two mechanically fractured faces to ensure good \ mechanical
interlock. This will require a crushed material. Permeability • Cement-treated bases have coefficients of permeability in the range of 3,000 to 15,000 ft per day. Untreated permeable
bases range from 500 to 2,000 ft per day. • Edge-drains are usually filled with the same highly permeable material that is used for the base or a material with even higher permeability.
Cement • While 200 lb cement per cubic yard has been the amount most generally specified, agencies have used amounts varying from 150 to 300 lb. • Mixes with 150 lb/c.y. cement content
should be restricted to areas subjected to only a few truck hauls over stable subgrade. 
Design Memo, Page 2 • Mixes with 200 Iblc.y. cement content are appropriate for general use (average trucking and subgrade conditions.), • Mixes with 250 Iblc.y. cement should be used
where heavy trucking will occur or where support conditions are questionable. • From the low to the high cement content, 7 day field compressive strengths varied from 150 to 600 psi;
however, cement content rather than strength should be used to select the most appropriate mix. Water Content • Water contents for workable mixtures are usually in the range of 100 to
120Iblyd3. Water content should be based on the contractor's assessment of the mix workability. • A water/cement ratio at the higher end of the range may encourage the cement paste to
flow to points of aggregate contact where its cementing action is needed. The FHWA recommends this design approach. Pavement Section • The thickness of permeable bases used has varied
from 3 to 6 inches, with 4 inches being the most common. The thickness should be adequate to overcome any construction variances and provide an adequate hydraulic conduit to transmit
the water to the edge-drain. • A minimum resultant slope of 2 percent is recommended wherever possible. Construction • Most commonly, the base is compacted by vibratory plates or screeds;
The objective is to solidly seat the material. • Over-rolling can cause degradation of the material with a resulting loss of permeability • Cement-treated permeable bases are cured by
water misting several times a day or by covering with polyethylene sheets for 3 to 5 days. • The need for curing is one of the least understood aspects of constructing cement treated
permeable bases. • Some agencies are studying the cost-effectiveness of curing; Wisconsin found little difference between material covered with polyethylene and that left exposed. •
During construction, care must be taken to prevent contamination of the permeable base from mud and dirt carried by truck tires. Construction traffic should be kept to a minimum and
sharp truck turning should be avoided. Tel.: (972) 840-19161 FAX: (912) 840-21561 E·mail: Info@gbwengineeIS,com 
Design Memo, Page 3 SEPARATORNOTES General • Beneath the permeable base course, a separator or filter layer prevents fine particles in the subgrade soil from infiltrating the open-graded
base. • An asphalt prime coat placed on the stabilized subgrade/subbase would provide additional protection. • A separator layer can be provided by an aggregate separator layer or by
a geotextile. Aggregate Layer • The aggregate layer must be strong enough to provide a stable working platform for constructing the permeable base. • The gradation of this layer must
be carefully selected to prevent fines from pumping up from the subgrade into the permeable base. • The aggregate layer must have a low permeability to deflect infiltrated water over
to the edge drain. • The FHWA recommends the percent oHines passing the No. 200 sieve should not exceed 12 percent and the coefficient of uniformity should be greater the 20 (preferably
greater the 40.) • A minimum thickness of 4 inches is recommended for the aggregate separator layer. layer. Geotextile • In sub grades with a high percentage of fines, a geotextile might
be a preferred choice. • The geotextile must have enough strength to survive the construction phase. • The principal advantage of a geotextile is its filtration capability. A geotextile
will allow any rising water, due to capillary action or a rising water table, to enter the permeable base and rapidly drain to the edge-drain system. • The main disadvantage is if the
geotextile becomes clogged, rising water will be trapped under the geotextile, saturating the subgrade and reducing subgrade support. • Pore openings should be sized to retain larger
soil particles and pass smaller soil particles. Large numbers of openings should be provided in case there is some clogging. • The geotextile should have a permeability several times
greater than the subgrade so that any vertical draining water will not be unduly impeded by the geotextile. Tel.: (912) 840-19161 FAX: (972) 840-21561 E·mail: lnfo@gbwengineers.com 
Design Memo. Page 4 • • The geotextile should be specified based on performance rather than type (woven or non-woven). Geotextiles are subject to degradation when exposed to sunlight
for extended periods of time. To prevent this, geotextiles should be placed and covered as quickly as possible. LONGITUDINAL EDGE-DRAIN NOTES General • For crowned pavement, edge-drains
are installed along both the inner and outer pavement edge. For uncrowned sections, only one edge-drain is installed at the low side. • For the longitudinal edge-drain pipe. most agencies
use 6-inch diameter flexible corrugated polyethylene tubing (perforated and meeting AASHTO M252.) Rigid PVC pipe (slotted, AASHTO M278-PCSO) has also been used but is more expensive.
Ifthe pipe is to be installed in trenches that are to be backfilled with asphalt-stabilized permeable material, the pipe must be capable of withstanding the temperature. • The trench
backfill material should be of the same material as the permeable base course to ensure adequate capacity. • The preferred location for the edge-drain is 2 or 3 feet outside the curb
to avoid settlement problems or crushing the collector pipe beneath construction equipment. Sometimes, the permeable base is extended under the shoulder with the edge-drain placed at
the outside shoulder edge. • The suggested minimum pipe size is 4 inches and the minimum slope should be 0.0035 ftlft. • Depending on the pipe size, the trench width should be between
8 and 10 inches. The trench should be deep enough to allow the top of the pipe to be located 2 inches below the bottom of the permeable base. • The edge-drain trench should be lined
with a geotextile, but the top of the trench adjacent to the permeable base is left open to allow a direct path for the water into the edge-drain pipe. • The ability to flush or jet
rod the system is important in the maintenance scheme. The edge-drain and outlet pipes must have proper bends (2 to 3-feet radii) and vents to facilitate this operation. • Videotaping
the completed edge-drain drain with flexible fiber optic eqnipment is suggested for final acceptance of the project. Lateral Pipes ) • Lateral outlet pipes are rigid PVC or metal. Rigid
pipe provides more protection against crushing due to construction operations. reL, (972) 840-19161 FAX: (972) 84().21561 E-mail: Info@gbweng;neers.com 
, , Design Memo, Page 5 • The Federal Highway Administration recommends a maximum outlet spacing of 250 feet to ensure rapid drainage. The pipes should be placed on a 3 percent grade
with the outlet at least 6 inches above the IO-year design flow in the ditch or storm sewer. • Pipe outlets into open ditches are usually protected by concrete headwalls and are equipped
with rodent screens. Construction • Edge.-drains may be installed before or after construction of the permeable base and concrete surface. This will affect the edge-drain location and
geotextileplacement. • Pre-pavement installation of the edge-drain may be necessary in some urban situations, but in general, the option should be given to the contractor. • Post-pavement installation
has several advantages: less threat of pipe damage and trench cave-ins due to construction traffic, less susceptibility to bad weather delays, and better line and grade becanse these
are taken off the previously constructed concrete pavements. Maintenance • Flushing Flushing and rodding of the edge-drain system should be done on a routine schedule. • Edge-drain outlets
and pipe systems should be inspected at least once a year using flexible fiber optic video equipment to determine their condition. • Ifregular maintenance is not done, the pavement section
will become flooded, increasing the rate of pavement damage. DESIGN NOTES • When rainfall events occur that are greater than the design storm, the permeable base will fill with water
and excess water will simply run off on the pavement surface. After the storm event, the permeable base will drain as designed. • A time to drain 50 percent of the drainable water of
1 hour is recommended for the highest class roads with the greatest amount of traffic. For most other highways and freeways, a time to drain 50 percent of the drainable water of 2 hours
is recommended. • Construction traffic on the completed base course is the single most important parameter in the selection of the type of permeable base to be used. CONSTRUCTION NOTES
• Central plant ruixing of permeable cement-treated base course is essentially the same as that for conventional concrete. 
Design Memo, Page 6 • The City may want to construct a test strip of the base course to determine which curing method to employ as well as which method of compaction should be used.
Requirements for moist curing should be investigated to see if they might be eliminated without substantial loss of perfonnance under actual job conditions. • The FHWA recommends that
a control strip be constructed at the beginning ofconstruction so that the combination of aggregate materials and construction practices be tested, and if necessary, adjusted to produce
a stable penneable base with adequate drainage characteristics. A minimum length of 500 feet is recommended, and this section can become part of the finished roadway if found to be acceptable.
1,\WPDOCSIPROJECTS\ADDJSONIOO-238\DIlSIGNMEMO.QPB Tel.: (972) 840-1916 /FAX: (972) 840-2J56 /E·mail: lnfo@gbwengineers.com 
APPENDIXB DUCTBANK MEMO 
.. & MEMO K'WEngmeerS, Inc. "JUllon 􀁪􀁬􀁗􀁾􀀠Suite 530, Date: May 7, 2001 To: Steve Chutchian, P.E. cc: Jerry Holder, P.E. (HNTB) From: Bruce Grantham Re: Ductbank This memo provides
a summary to a meeting I recently had with Catherine Lisenbee, Utility Franchise Coordinator for the City of Irving, and Mike Lisenbee, Construction Manager for Future Telecom Inc. •
Irving has adopted Ordinance No. 7533 (attached) which governs right-of-way construction. • Ms. IJsenbee communicates the ordinance requirements with all franchise utility companies
that plan to install utilities within the City's right-of-way. • Irving investigated the viability of the City installing ductbanks with street construction projects but rejected this
notion for the following reasons: Mter reviewing House Bill 1777, the City attorney ruled that Irving would assume liability for future maintenance of the ductbank and for potential
damages iffiber service were disrupted due to problems with the ductbank. HB 1777 does not allow the ductbank owner to profit from the sale or lease of ducts. • HB 1777 no longer allows
cities to collect permit fees for reviewing and processing requests from franchise utility companies to install ducts within theirright-of-ways. • Irving is currently having discussions
with two companies that install and sell ducts to determine their interest in installing ductbanks in conjunction with future City street projects. Another approach Irving is considering
involves contacting all known utility companies that operate in the region and informing them that no future franchise utility construction will be allowed in a right-of-way after the
street is constructed; consequently, sufficient ducts must be installed by and for these utility companies prior to construction. The downside of this approach is that new utility companies
may enter the region in the future and require service along the right-of-way. According to Ms. IJsenbee, many businesses today require that comprehensive fiber facilities be available
in the right-right-of-way near their buildings. The availability of these facilities assists in the economic development ofcoqrmercial sectors of the City like Las Colinas. Mr. and Ms.
Lisenbee IJCommended that any ductbank installation be designed by a qualified firm that is currently working in the industry and knows the requirements of the fiber companies such as:

Memo, Page 2 Mr. Steve Chutchian May 7, 2001 • Manholes are typically spaced 800' to 1,000' apart unless a Central Bell Office is located along the corridor, in which case more manholes
are required. Three or four manholes are typically installed at each location so that the ducts can be separated and routed through different manholes. • For security purposes, the fiber
companies prefer to have their own 3' x 5' x 4' (deep) manholes installed and reserved for the use of one company; however, larger 8' x 6' x 4' (deep) manholes are used on ductbanks
where the future users are not known and the manholes will need to be shared. These larger manholes will have security partitions installed inside the manhole and, whenever a utility
needs to access the manholes, all the utilities with services in that manhole are called so that their inspectors can be onsite when the manhol e is accessed. • Service laterals are
typically installed from the ductbank to the back of curb at the manhole locations. • The type of duct duct used in ductbanks can vary; a form of ribbed PVC pipe is typically used for
fiber. • The size of ducts used for fiber has increase from 1.25" to 1.5" diameter recently. • Mr. and Ms. Lisenbee suggested that 12 -6" ducts would be a good choice for a ductbank
where the future users are unknown. A 6" duct would allow for several smaller 1.5" fiber ducts inside in addition to providing a larger duct for other types of cable such as telephone
or electric. • Ms. Lisenbee supported Addison's proposal to have a ductbank installed prior to street construction. Fort Worth also has also taken a progressive approach to franchise
utility management within its right-of-ways. Mr. Mitch Montgomery at (817) 998-0937 is the utility coordinator. Ms. Lisenbee and Mr. Montgomery are members of a Right-of-Way Management
committee which meets every second Thursday at2 p.m. in Irving's City Hall. This committee is open to City representatives who have questions regarding the issues summarized in this
memo. 
APPENDIXC LETTER REPORT FORMIDWAY ROAD PAVEMENT SECTION 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham, & Waldbauer May 21, 2001 Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town ofAddison Post Office Box 90 I 0 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Letter Report for Midway Road Pavement Section
GBWNo.238 Dear Steve: This letter report summarizes data from an in-depth field inspection of the Midway Road pavement condition performed by GBW staffand the enclosed draft geotechnical
report prepared by Alpha Testing, Inc. In addition, this report includes a review ofthe pavement section alternatives included in the Alpha Testing report and an opinion of probable
cost for two ofthe pavement sections that utilize alternative base materials. Description of Problem Alpha Testing, Inc. strategically selected boring locations in order to determine
how subsurface conditions were affecting the level ofpavement distress. Following an analysis ofthe field inspection and soil boring data, we have the following observations: • The pavement
distress along the northbound lanes is more pronounced than the southbound lanes. • The worst worst section ofthe southbound lanes is in the vicinity ofthe railroad crossing near the
Belt Line Road end ofthe project where a sag is located. • The cross-slope on the northbound lanes, which is mostly in the 1/8 to 1/4-inch per foot range, is significantly less than
the southbound lanes, where it is mostly in the 114 to 1/2-inch per foot range. • The difference hetween the northbound and southbound lane cross-slopes appears to have resulted from
an attempt to match the existing ground at the east and west right-of-way lines when the current Midway Road pavement was designed in 1982. • The flatter cross-slope on the northbound
lanes increases the likelihood that surface water will pond or runoff slowly, resulting in a higher infiltration rate into the subgrade through pavement joints and cracks. • In addition
to rainfall, sprinkler systems in the medians and adjacent parkways are other sources of water which can infiltrate the subgrade. • Flat longitudinal slopes along some sections of Midway
Road also slow that rate of storm water runoff; for example, in the vicinity ofthe railroad crossing. • Poor surface drainage appears to be the primary reason why pavement distress has
been more rapid along most ofthe northbound lanes when compared with the southbound lanes. • The poor condition ofmany pavement joints, some of which may have been widened when the pavement
was milled and resealed in 1994, provide conduits for surface water to reach the subgrade. • The plasticity index ofthe underlying clay soil is generally in the 18 to 55 range, which
indicates a high potential to shrink and swell. • The soil borings do not provide evidence of a ground water problem. • Only eight of the 22 soil borings showed evidence ofIime in the
subgrade, which suggests that the lime stabilized subgrade was not uniformly constructed. 􀁾􀀠• A combination of moisture penetration over time and nonuniform lime stabilization during
construction has probsbly reduced the bearing capacity ofthe subgrade. 1919 S. Shlloh Road, Suite 500, L.B. B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (977:) 84Q.1916 Fax (yI2)
84Q.2156 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 2 • The load transfer capability of the transverse contraction joints has been insufficient to support the heavy traffic volume, resulting
in a difference in pavement elevation at the front and back ends of adjacent slabs. This difference, which results in a bump at the pavement joints on the northbound lanes in particular,
has also resulted in a transverse crack at the midpoint ofsome slabs. • Exhibit A contains a summary ofdata from the field inspection and the geotechnical report. Comparable Pavement
Alternatives We received a copy of your letter to Jerry Holder dated March 23, 2001 in which you authorize the design team to proceed with pavement section Alternative 3 which included
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) on a Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) with edge drains. Pursuant to our previous discussions, it is understood that the Town intends to use the same
type ofpavement section for both the Midway and Arapaho Road projects, given that the depths ofthe concrete and base layers may differ. In a similar manner to the Terra-Mar, Inc. report
for Arapaho Road, the Alpha Testing report for Midway Road analyzes several alternative pavement sections. These alternatives, which assume a 30-year project life, are summarized in
the foHowing section. • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through aggregate interlock and the subgrade is compacted: either 11.5 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches
Compacted subgrade OR 10.5 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Compacted subgrade • Ifthe load transfer betweenjoints is through agf[1'egate interlock and the subgrade is lime stabilized:
either 11 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 10 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 2), 200) Page 3 • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through dowels and the subgrade is compacted: eilher )0 inches 6 inches 6 inches OR PCC Crushed
Limestone Base Compacted subgrade 9 inches 6 inches 6 inches PCC CTPB Compacted subgrade • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through dowels and the subgrade is lime stabilized: eilher
9.5 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 9 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade Review ofAlternatives Upon a review ofthe
pavement sections listed above, it is evident that each ofthe following alternatives reduce the required PCC thickness by Y, to ) inch: • The use ofCTPB in lieu ofCrushed Limestone Base.
Given the Town's selection of CTPB for the Arapaho Road project, it is anticipated that CTPB will also be the base material ofchoice for the Midway Road project. • The use oflime stabilized
sub grade in lieu ofcompacted sub grade. In Section 5.4 ofthe Terra-Mar report, it states that 'Ifconstruction proceeds during wet weather, a lime stabilized subgrade in lieu ofa compacted
subgrade may be desirable in order to provide a more stable and less moisture sensitive working platform.' A representative with Jackson Brothers, the contractor on the Post and Paddock
paving project for the City of Grand Prairie, strongly recommended that a lime stabilized subgrade be used with CTPB due to constructability problems which they experienced on Post and
Paddock with a compacted subgrade. If the Town ofAddison is willing to consider lime stabilization on Midway Road, it could be bid as an alternate to a compacted subgrade. 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 4 • The use ofdowels in lieu ofaggregate interlockfor load transfer between joints. In Section 5.5 of the Terra-Mar report, it states that
'Steel dowels should be used for load transfer at all joints transverse to traffic.' This recommendation applies to transverse contraction joints which they indicate should typically
be placed at 15 feet on-center. The Terra-Mar report does not provide an alternative pavement section for load transfer through aggregate interlock between joints. Locally, aggregate
interlock is most commonly used on municipal roadways; nevertheless, both load transfer options could be bid as alternates on Midway Road. Cost Comparison of Alternatives If lime stabilization
is bid as an alternate to a compacted subgrade, and dowels are bid in lieu of aggregate interlock for load transfer between joints, the contractors that bid the Midway Road project will
determine the cost effectiveness ofthese alternatives. Ifone or more or these alternatives is not acceptable to the Town, we would be pleased to do the research necessary to prepare
an opinion of probable cost for each alternative. Although it is anticipated that the pavement section on Midway Road will incorporate CTPB, Exhibit B provides an opinion of probable
cost for informational purposes to compare it with a pavement section that incorporates Crushed Limestone Base. This comparison, which indicates a $866,805 increase in cost to use CTPB,
is contained in that attached spreadsheet. CTPB Design Memo Given the limited use of CTPB as a base material for urban pavements in the metroplex. we have prepared a design memo based
on our research ofthis materiaL The attached design memo on CTPB has been prepared following conversations with a supplier, a contractor, other local and state agency representatives,
and other engineers. This memo is to provides an evaluation of CTPB along with technical data for consideration prior to developing consistent pavement section design standards and specifications
for the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. Fly Ash The Town of Addison's staff has expressed an interest in using fly ash in the mix design ofthe PCC pavement for the Midway and Arapaho
Road projects. Mr. Michael Caldarone, P.E. with TXI indicated that fly ash is used in concrete paving by number oflocal cities including Dallas, Fort Worth Arlington, Plano and Grand
Prairie, and by TxDOT on the majority oftheir concrete paving projects. I also contacted the City of Garland's construction manager and confirmed that they permit fly ash in concrete
paving mix designs, although the amount is limited to the lesser of 15% of the cement weight or 100 100. Mr. Caldarone furnished our office with sample concrete mix designs, with and
without fly ash, which achieve 3,000 psi in 3 days and 7 days respectively. These mix designs are attached for you information. If the Town wishes to utilize fly ash on the subject projects,
we can include appropriate limits for its use in the technical specifications. 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P .E. May 21, 2001 PageS After reviewing the enclosed geotechnical report for Midway Road and this letter, please contact me ifyou any comments. I will then request
that Alpha Testing finalize their report. Very truly yours, 􀀱􀁴􀀺􀁾􀁐􀁅􀀠President Attachments cc: Jerry Holder, HNTB Dave Lewis, Alpha Testing BG/gg J:\WPIX>CS\PROJEC1'S\ADDlSON\OO-TI8'lDesign
Rcpon\Chu!chianJtr 
APPENDIXD ALPHA TESTING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 
'. REMEDIAL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION on MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Beltline Road to KeUer Springs Road Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988' Prepared for: GBW ENGINEERS, INC. 1919 Shiloh
Road, Suite 530, LB 27 Garland, Texas 75042 . Attention: Mr. Bruce R. Grantham, P.E. April 2, 200 I Prepared By: ALPHA TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin Road, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229

11 , 􀁦􀁾􀁁TESnNG. INC. .,. 2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 1 00 Dallas, Texas 75229 972/620-8911· 972/263·4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 GBW ENGINEERS, INC. 1919 Shiloh S. Road, Suite 530,
LB 27 Garland. Texas 75042 Attention: Mr. Bruce R. Grantham, P.E. April 2. 2001 Re: Remedial Geotechnical Exploration MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Beltline Road to Keller Springs Road
Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988 Attached is the report of the remedial geotechnical exploration performed for the project referenced above. This study has been authorized by Mr.
Bruce Grantham, P.E. on December 28, 2000 and performed in accordance with ALPHA Proposal No. GT 7371 dated June 27, 2000. This report contains results of field explorations and laboratory
testing and an engineering interpretation of these with respect to available project characteristics. The results and analyses have been used to develop recommendations for remedial
design and reconstruction ofa segment of Midway Road in Addison, Texas. ALPHA TESTING, INC. appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
such as providing materials testing services during construction, please contact our office. Sincerely yours, ALPHA TESTING, INC. ,?!/i//David A. Lewis, P.E. Man er of Engineering Services
Jim L. Hillhouse, P.E. President DALlJLHldal Copies: (3) Client Geotechnical Fng/neeffng • ConsI1l1clion MaferbIs Testing • EnviIOnmenloi Englneeling • Consufffng 
TABLE OF CONTENTS on MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Beltline Road to Keller Springs Road Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................
..............................................1 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................2 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
.....................................................................................................2 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS ...........................................................
, ......................................... 3 5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................3 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...................
................................................4 6.1 Pavement.. .................................................................................... .4 6.1.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation
...................................................5 6.1.2 Pavement Section Options .........................................................5 6.1.3 Pavement Specifications ..........................
...................................7 6.2 Drainage................................................. ,.......................................11 7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..............8 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading .................. '......... ,...... ,............................8 7.2 Fill Compaction .............................................
..................................9 7.3 Groundwater.......................... ,', ........... ,...........................................10 APPENDIX A-I Methods ofField Exploration
General Location -Figure I Boring Location Plans -Figures 2 -7 B-1 Methods ofLaboratory Testing Record of Subsurface Exploration Key to Soil Symbols and Classifications Moisture Density
Relationship -Figures 8 & 9 Mechanical Lime Stabilization -Figure 10 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this remedial geotechnical exploration is to evaluate some of the physical and engineering properties of subsurface materials
at the subject study area with respect to design and reconstruction of a segment of Midway Road in Addison, Texas. The field exploration has been accomplished by securing subsurface
samples (including concrete pavement) from widely spaced test borings perfonned along the study area. Engineering analyses have been perfonned from results of the field exploration and
results of laboratory tests perfonned on representative samples. The analyses have been used to develop recommended pavement section options for the subject reconstructed ruadway. Also
included is an evaluation of the site with respect to potential construction problems and recommendations concerning earthwork and quality control testing during construction. This infonnation
can be used to verifY subsurface conditions and to aid in ascertaining all construction phases meet project specifications. Recommendations provided in this report have been developed
from infonnatiou'obtained in: test borings depicting, subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations and' at the particUlar time designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions
at other locations may differ from those obseryed at 􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁧􀀮􀁬􀁯􀁣􀁡􀁴􀁪􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀮􀀠The scope of work is not intended to fully define the variability ofsubsiiiface 􀁾􀁾􀁊􀀺􀁜􀁊􀁾􀀠that
niay be present on the study area. ' ' The.nature and extent of variations between boringS may not become eviderituntil construction. If significant variations then appear evident, our
office should be contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations after perfonning on-site observations and tests. Professional services provided in this geotechnical exploration have been
perfonned, findings obtained, and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The scope of services provided herein
does not include an environmental assessment of the site or investigation for the presence or absence of 􀁨􀁾􀁯􀁵􀁳􀀠materials in the soil, surface water or groundwater. ALPHA TESTING,
INC. is not responsible for conClusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on this data. lnfonnation contained in this report is intended for'exclusive use of the Client
(and 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀁩􀁴􀁤􀁥􀁳􀁩􀀡􀁭􀀠􀁊􀀻􀁥􀁰􀁲􀁹􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁳􀀩􀀠and design of the specific pavement outlined in 􀁓􀁾􀁴􀁪􀀨􀀮􀁩􀁮􀀠2.0. RecoD,mie'jjllii.\:iotiS pIiiserited in thi!i re)Xi!:t
should riot be used fOI: design of any other pavements ex:®pt those specifically describe:a in this report. Further, subSUrface conditions can change with passage of time. Recommendations
contained herein are not considered applicable for an extended period of time after the completion date of this report. It is recommended our office be contacted for a review of the
contents of this report for construction commencing more tQan, two (2) years after completion ofthis report, 􀁾􀀱􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀬􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀧􀁩􀁾􀁕􀀺􀁊􀁮􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀺􀁥􀁴􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀺􀁴􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺
􀁹􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁮􀀮􀁮􀀺􀀺􀀠 ,􀁴􀁬􀁩􀁑􀁦􀁾􀀻􀁡􀁢􀀢􀁯􀁴􀁴􀁴􀀻􀁻􀁩􀁊􀁏􀁊􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁃􀁳􀀬􀀠our office Should be 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁃􀁴􀁥􀁏􀀠immediately since tllls Ii;lay .. :' ' ,:,'
I ' 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 materially alter the recommendations. Further, ALPHA TESTING, INC. is not responsible for damages resulting from workmanship of designers or contractors and it
is recommended that the owner retain qualified personnel to verify work is performed in accordance with plans and specifications.. 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS It is proposed to reconstruct
a segment of Midway Road located between Beltline Road and Keller Springs Road in Addison, Texas. A site plan illustrating the general outline of the study area is provided as Figure
I, the Location Plan, in the Appendix of this report. At the time the field exploration was performed, the study area was developed with the existing concrete roadway. Present plans
provide for reconstruction of the existing pavement. The existing pavement has experienced some distress. The distress is generally in the form of depressed areas adjacent to the existing
pavement joints and generally occur in the direction of traffic flow from the pavement joints. Joints in the pavement were noted to be unusually large (up to about W' wide) and in some
areas it appears surface water is entering the pavement sub grade through these wide joints. At the north end of the study area (north of Borings 21 and 22; north-bound lane) in particular,
water Was actua1ly noted emerging from the joints immediately after passage of large trucks. In generill, transverse cracking was noted across the pavement panel near their midpoint
in areas where significant pavement distress was noted. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions along the study area have been explored by drilling 22 test borings in general accordance
with ASTM D 420 to a depth of lOft using standard rotary drilling equipment. The approximate location ofeach test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figures 2-7, enclosed
in the Appendix of this report. Some borings were drilled in distressed areas while others were drilled in non-distressed areas for comparison. Details of drilling and sampling operations
are are briefly summarized in Methods of Field Exploration, Section A-Ltif4he Appendix. Soil and rock (shaly limestone) types encountered during the field exploration are presented on
Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets included in the Appendix of this report. The boring logs contain our Field Technician's and Engineer's interpretation of conditions believed to
exist between actual samples retrieved. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information. Lines delineating subsurface strata on the boring logs are approximate
and the actual transition between strata may be gradual. Fill materials have been encountered at some boring Incations as will be discussed in Section 5.0. There maY be fill in other
borings than noted or at other locations, but could not be readily identified. Composition ofthe fill has been evaluated based on samples retrieved from 6-inch maximum diameter boreholes.
It is anticipated this fill was placed and compacted 2 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 during construction of the existing concrete roadway. However, since no records were made available of fill placement, compaction or uniformity, subsurface conditions
immediately adjacent to test borings could be substantially different than conditions observed in test borings. 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS Selected samples of the subsurface materials have
been tested in the laboratory to evaluate their engineering properties as a basis in providing recommendations for pavement design and earthwork construction. A brief dcscription of
testing procedures used in the laboratory can be found in Methods of Laboratory Testing, Section B-1 ofthe Appendix. Individual test results are presented either on Record of Subsurface
Exploration sheets or on summary data sheets also enclosed in the Appendix. 5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In general, the existing concrete pavement is underlain by soils derived
from the Austin Chalk fonnation. Within the 10-ft maximum depth explored during this study, subsurface materials consist generally of clay (CH) underlain by calcareous clay (CL)'and
deepershaly limestone. In the southern and central portions of the study area (Borings, 1-16), the existing pavement sectiongenerally consists of about 8 inches of 􀁐􀁯􀁾cement concrete
overlyinglirne treated subgrade soils. '(It shotild be noted thlrt 􀁬􀁩􀁬􀀣􀁥􀀮􀁾􀁾·8ubgr,ade soils were noteIlCOuntetei;l in ,all of these boring locations.) In the 􀁮􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁭􀁍􀁲􀁬􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀹􀀨􀁩􀁴􀁨􀁢􀁓􀁴􀁩􀀱􀁤􀁹􀀠area (Borings 􀀱􀀷􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀩􀀻􀁴􀁩􀁩􀁥􀁥􀁸􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠􀁾􀀠.',', -.: ',;
\,. -, ',".; -.pavement section, generally consIsts of 6;5 to 7 Illches of Portland cement· concrete overlYlllg a clayey (CHlCL) subgrade. The letters in parenthesis represent the soils'
classification according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). More detailed stratigraphic information is presented on the Record ofSubsurfaCe Exploration Sheets attached
to this report. Most of the subsurface materials are relatively impem1eable and' are anticipated to have a slow response to water movement. Therefore, several days ofobservation will
be required toeva,lwite actual groundwater levels within the depths explored. Also, the groundwater level at 􀀧􀁱􀁩􀁾􀀠􀀺􀁾􀁹􀀠area is anticipated to fluctuate seasonally depending on
the amount ofrainfall, 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁡􀁪􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁷􀀧􀁤􀁬􀁩􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀠conditions and subsurface drainage characteristics. ' ','" During field explorations, free 􀁧􀁲􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁾􀀡􀁃􀁲􀀠􀁨􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁮􀁯􀁴􀀮􀁥􀁤􀀠in
Borings 1-4 on dijllin!\ 􀁾􀀹􀀹􀀱􀁳􀀠liJld in open boreholes upon completioJ;lardep,U,!$ 􀁪􀀩􀁦􀀬􀁾􀀾􀀤􀁾􀁰􀀬􀀺􀀳􀁾.• Free groundwa(er wI!! 􀁾􀁉􀀩􀀺􀁑􀁴􀁬􀁩􀀾􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀠in the other borings
􀁤􀁵􀁲􀁩􀁮􀀺􀁧􀁤􀁕􀁩􀁬􀁩􀀧􀀹􀁧􀁯􀁩􀀤􀀮􀀧􀁩􀁩􀁨􀁬􀁬􀀻􀁑􀁭􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀶􀁾􀀬􀀶􀀧􀁯􀁲􀁥􀁨􀀮􀁯􀁬􀁥􀁳􀀠1i}jOii;&JinpllSi,irin: In 0'11£ opinion, the current groundWater leVel on die stQdy area
may be lpcated bclowtlie bOttom of the borings and water within the depths explored may be "perched;' groundwater which has percolated downward through desiccation cracks in in the clayey
type soils. It is not uncommon to detect seasonal groundwater either from natural fractures within the clay matrix, near the soil/rock interface or from fractures in the rock, particularly
after a wet season. If more detailed groundwater infonnation is required, mouitoring wells or piezometers can be installed. 3 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 Further details concerning subsurface materials and conditions encountered can be obtained from the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets provided in the Appendix
of this report. 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDA nONS The following design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described Project Characteristics (Section 2.0) and
Subsurface Conditions (Section 5.0). If project criteria should change, our office should conduct a review to determine if modifications to the recommendations are required. Further,
it is recommended our office be provided with a copy of the final plans and specifications for review prior to construction. 6.1 Pavement Clay or calcareous clay encountered near the
existing ground surface will probably constitute the subgrade for the new pavement. Therefore, it is recommended these materials be improved prior to construction of pavement. Due to
the wide spacing of the borings, division of the study area into areas with similar subgrade conditions was not possible. Delineation of areas with similar subgrade conditions, if required,
should be performed during construction after the subgrade material has been exposed. The specific type of improvement procedures required in given pavement areas will be dependent upon
the type of subgrade material present after final subgrade elevation has been achieved. Calculations used to determine the required pavement thickness are based only on the physical
and engineering properties of the materials and . conventional thickness determination procedures. Related civil design factors such as subgrade drainage, shoulder support, cross-sectional
configurations, surface elevations, reinforcing steel, joint design and environmental factors will significantly affect the service life and must be included in preparation of the construction
drawings and specifications, but were not included in the scope of this study. Normal periodic maintenance will be required for all pavement to achieve the design life ofthe pavement
system. Please note, the recommended pavement section options provided below are considered the minimum necessary to provide satisfactory performance based on the expected traffic loading.
In some cases, City minimum standards for pavement section construction may exceed those provided below. The following design information has been provided by the Client; • New pavement
will consist of Portland-cement concrete and the design life is 30 years. • Daily traffic based on 1999 information for the study area is about 51,000 vehicles per day. 4 
ALPHA Report No, 00988 ., • The projected daily traffic volume by Year 2020 will be up to about 60,000 vehicles per day. • It is anticipated the new pavement will be subject to significant
truck traffic. • Truck traffic will be about 20 percent of the daily traffic volume. Therefore, the design traffic used for the new pavement is 15.118.000 I8-kip equivalent axle load
applications for a 30-year design life. 6. I. I Pavement Subgrade Preparation Due to the relatively heavy truck traffic expected, it is recommended a non-erodable base material be provided
immediately below the Portland-cement concrete pavement. The non-erodable base material could consist of either a crushed limestone base material or a cement treated penneable base.
The non-erodable base should be supported on an improved subgrade consisting of either are-compacted subgrade or a mechanically lime stabilized subgrade. It should be noted that a geotextile
fabric (e.g., Marafi 180N or equivalent) should be provided between the improved subgrade soils and the cement treated penneable base to prevent fines from the improved soils from penetrating
into the penneable base material. If a penneable base is used, the subgrade must be carefully graded (Le., no birdbaths and minimum slope of 1.5 percent) to provide positive flow of
percolated water through the penneable base to collection points at the extreme perimeter of the pavement. Collected water at the perimeter of the pavement should be drained to an appropriate
receptacle. I f the subgrade soils are mechanically lime stabilized, it is recommended lime stabilization procedures extend at least I ft beyond the edge of the pavement to reduce effects
of seasonal shrinking and swelling upon the extreme edges of pavement. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D 698) and within the range of 0 to 4 percentage points above the mixture's optimum moisture content. In all areas where hydrated lime is used to stabilize subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit
tests should be performed to verify the resulting plasticity index of the: soil-lime mixture is at/or below 15. Mechanical lime stabilization of the pavement subgrade soil will not prevent
normal seasonal movement of the underlying untreated materials. Normal maintenance of pavement should be expected over the pavement design life. 6.1.2 Pavement Sections Options California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests performed on composite samples from the test borings indicate the CBR value for the existing clay subgrade soils will be about 3 whereas the CBR value for the
same material after mechanical lime 5 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 stabilization would increase to about 20. Using the above values and assuming normal traffic for a 3D-year project life, the following pavement sections are recommended
if load transfer between joints is through aggregate interlock: Compacted Subgrade 11.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches compacted subgrade
OR 10.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches cement treated permeable base 6 inches compacted subgrade Lime Stabilized Subgrade II inches 6 inches 6 inches IO inches 6 inches j 6
inches OR Portland-cement concrete crushed limestone base material lime stabilized subgrade Portland-cement concrete cement treated permeable base lime stabilized subgrade [f dowels
are provided for load transfer at the joints in the new pavement, the following pavement section options are provided: Compacted Subgrade 10 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches
crushed limestone base matelial 6 inches compacted subgrade OR 9 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches cement treated penneable base 6 inches compacted subgrade 6 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 Lime Stabilized Subgrade 9.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches lime stabilized -subgrade • OR 9 inches Portland-cement
concrete 6 inches cement treated permeable base 6 inches lime stabilized subgrade 6.1.3 Pavement Specifications Pavement should be specified, constructed and tested to meet the following
requi'rements: I. Portland-Cement Concrete: Texas SDHPT Item 360. SpecifY a minimum flexural strength of 650 lbs per sq inch at 28 days. Concrete should be designed with 5 + I percent
entrained air. 2. Crushed Limestone Base Material: Texas SDHPT Item 247, Type A or B, Grade 2 or better. The material should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of standard Proctor
maximwn dry density (ASTM D 698) and within three percentage points ofthe material's optimwn moisture content. 3. Cement Treated Permeable Base Material: Cement treated permeable base
should have a minimwn hydraulic conductivity of 3,000 feet per day after compaction. Permeable base material shall consist of coarse aggregate with no fme aggregate (sand, etc.) and
shall be treated with 6 percent Portland cement by dry weight of the aggregate. The material should be 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁡􀁪􀀻􀁾􀀠to a minimum 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum. dIY' debsity
(ASTM D 558) and within three percentage points of the material's optimum moisture content. The material supplier shall submit an acceptable mix design for approval. 4. Lime Stabilized
Subgrade: Texas SDHPT Item 260. An estimated 3 and 8 percent of hydrated lime (by dry soil weight) should be applied to existing calcareous clay and clay soils, respectively, which have
been scarified to a depth of 6 inches. The actual amOlmt of lime required should be confirmed by additional laboratory tests prior to construction. 7 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 " a. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of 0 to 4 percentage
points above optimum moisture. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained until the pavement surface is placed. b. In all areas where hydrated lime is util ized to stabilize
the subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit tests should be performed prior to completion of construction to assure the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture will be at/or
below 15. Gradation. Atterberg-Iimits and density testa should be performed at a frequency of I test per 5000 sq ft of pavement. 5. Re-compacted Subgrade: On-site materials should be
scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches and re-compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of 1 percentage point below
to 3 percentage points above the material's optimum moisture content. The moisture content of of the sub grade should be maintained until the pavement surface is placed. Density tests
should be performed at a frequency of I test per 5000 sq ft ofpavement. 7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Variations in subsurface conditions could be encountered
during construction. To permit correlation between test boring data and actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction, it is recommended a registered Geotechnical Engineer
be retained to observe construction procedures and materials. Some construction problems, particularly degree or magnitude, cannot be anticipated until the course of construction. The
recommendations offered in the following paragraphs are intepded, not to limit or preclude other conceivable solutions, but rather to provide our observllti(lns IjSed on our experience
and understanding of the project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered in the borings. 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading All areas supporting pavement should be properly
prepared. After completion of the necessary stripping, clearing, and excavating and prior to placing any required fill, the exposed subgrade should be carefully inspected by probing
and testing. Any undesirable material (organic material, wet, soft, or loose soil) still in place should be removed. 8 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 The exposed subgrade should be further inspected by proof-rolling with a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck or similar equipment weighing approximately
10 tons to check for pockets of soft or loose material hidden beneath a thin crust of possibly better soil. Proof-rolling procedures should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer
or his representative. Any unsuitable materials exposed should be removed and replaced with well-compacted material as outlined in Section 7.2. Slope stability analysis ofembankments
(natural or constructed) was not within the scope of this study. Trench excavations should be braced or cut at stable slopes in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requirements, Title 29, Items 1926.650-1926.653 and other applicable building codes. 7.2 Fill Compaction Calcareous or sandy materials with a plasticity index below 25 should
be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of I percentage point below to 3 percentage points above
the material's optimum moisture content. Clay soils with a plasticity index equal to or greater than 25 should be compacted to a dry density between 95 and 100 percent of standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The compacted moisture content of the clays during placement should be within the range of 0 to 4 percentage points above optimum. Clay fill should
be processed and the largest particle or clod should be less than 6 inches prior to compaction. Limestone or other rock-like materials used as random fill should be compacted to at least
95 percent ofstandard Proctor maximum dry density. The compacted moisture content of limestone or other rock-like materials used as random fill is not considered crucial to proper performance.
However, if the material's moisture content during placement is within 3 percentage points of optimum, the compactive effort required to achieve the minimum compaction criteria may be
minimized. Individual rock pieces larger than 6 inches in dimension should not be used as filL However, if rock fiU is utilized within I ft below the bottom of the pavement, the maximum
allowable size of individual rock pieces should be reduced to 3 inches. 9 
I . APPENDIX 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 , ! A-I METHODS OF FIELD EXPLORATION Using standard rotary drilling equipment, a total of 22 test borings have been performed for this geotechnical exploration
at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figures 2-7. The test boring locations have been staked by either pacing or taping and estimating right angles from landmarks
which could be identified in the field and as shown on the site plans provided during this study. The location of test borings shown on the Boring Location Plan is considered accurate
only to the degree implied by the method used to locate the borings. The surface elevations provided on the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets have been obtained by plotting the
boring locations on the site plans and interpolating the surface elevation. Surface elevations given on the boring logs are approximate. Relatively undisturbed samples of the cohesive
subsurface materials have been obtained by hydraulically pressing 3-inch O.D. thin-wall sampling tubes into the underlying soils at selected depths (ASTM D 1587). These samples have
been removed from the sampling tubes in the field and examined visually. One representative portion of each sample has been sealed in a plastic bag for use in future visual examinations
and possible testing in the laboratory. Modified Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) tests have also been completed in the field to determine the apparent 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁣􀁥􀀠strength characteristics
of the rock type materials. A 3-inch diameter steel cone driven bYllA76-pound hammer dropped 24 inches is the basis for Texas State Department of Highways . and Public Transportation
strength correlations. In this case, ALPHA TESTING, INC. bas modified the proce<hJre allowing the use of a 140-pound hammer dropping 30-inches for completion ofthe field test. Depending
on the resistance (strength) ofthe materials, either the number of blows of the hammer required to provide 12 inches of penetration, or the inches ofpenetration ofthe cone due to 100
blows ofthe hammer are recorded on the field logs and are shown on the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets as TCP (reference: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation,
Bridge Design Manual), using the modified procedure. Logs of all borings have been included in the Appendix of this report. The logs show visual descriptions of all soil and rock (shaly
limestone) strata encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System. Sampling information, pertinent field data, .and field observations are also included. Soil and rock samples
not consumed by testing will be retained in our laboratory for at least 30 days and then discarded unless the Client requests otherwise. 􀁾􀁾􀀠(, .; '( i (,:, 
􀁾􀁁􀀡􀀡􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀭􀁬􀀠D Study Area GBW Engineers, Inc. 􀁾􀀠Garland, TexasJ􀁾􀀠􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁍􀁕􀁾􀂷􀁤􀁾􀁗􀀭􀁡􀁙􀀭􀁂􀁢􀀭􀀭􀁡􀁤􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁯􀀭􀁭􀀭􀁵􀀭􀁵􀀭􀁣􀁴􀀭􀁷􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠Addison, Texas 'f General
Location Figure 1 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀠00988 4/02101 
,'V, 3NIl 􀁈􀁊􀀱􀀧􀁖􀁾􀀠􀁾..... N /o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. 00988 4/02/01 
I t.., N 􀁬􀁉􀁬􀁾􀀺􀁊􀁬􀀧􀁬􀀢􀀧􀁳􀀬􀀠Inc. Texas o 20 40 ---􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁒􀁾􀀠ST. LOt Rt ,,, ,/. ,,􀁾􀀠I I ,I '" 'II I 1/I J I I I . II/I ," , 'I 'Ii " Ii " , " , I:, , Ii ,, 􀁰􀁾􀀠I,, ,"
, 􀁾􀀠I " II I' " " II, I 􀁉􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁡􀂣􀁐􀁾􀁨􀁬􀁾􀂷􀁣􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁮􀁭􀁆􀁾􀁴􀂷􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀻􀁾____􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁾__,-______􀁩􀁂􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁦􀁵􀀻􀁆􀁾􀁾__-i1 Boring Figure 3 00988 4/02/01 
􀀮􀁾􀀠, l N -' = ,,, I I I I I I I' I I' I' ' II I 'b'IFI 􀀡􀁾􀁉􀀠I I,' 1 •\ I ( • I I'1::I , 􀀧􀁾􀀠:􀁤􀁾􀀡􀀠1􀁾􀁩􀀠II \1 i1\ H:J1VV'l I,II I' II I I I I 1\ I f ® 0 20 40 Grapbic Scale
In Ft. A Boring Location Plan Figure 4 GBW Engineers, Inc. Ga,r,!R.Dd, Texas Midway R6ad Reconstruction 00988 4102101Addison, Texas 
N j o 20 40 \., \ \\ I , I 􀁉􀁾􀀠II I I I I I I I I 􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀠00988 to I: 􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀠, I ; 􀁾􀀠0' I 0 0 Fil!'nreS 4/02/01 
•• •• I ,H, 3NIl 􀁾􀀠I j I (0 ; i ! • J 1.. I i! , ,! I , /! /! \ \ i \ 􀁾􀁜• 1 I \ \ N • I l t I 􀁾􀀠• Ii\ , 0 20 40 I Texas Graphic Scale In Ft. Figure 6 00988 Ji"J B-17 B-18 􀀨􀁾􀀬􀀯')
I . I I I { 􀁾􀁾􀀠Plan 4/02/01 
J I N o 20 40 I Graphic Scale In Ft. I,, I \ /i. I I <I.! I • l I 􀁲􀁂􀀭􀁩􀁾􀀲􀀲􀀠I (, . . I I I 􀀺􀁾􀂧􀀠1 I! . \ \ j .. fi /\ FfOlre 7 00988 4/02/01 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 B-1 METHODS OF LABORATORY TESTING Representative samples are inspected and classified by a qualified member of the Geotechnical Division and the boring logs are
edited as necessary. To aid in classifYing the subsurface materials and to determine the general engineering 􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁳􀀬􀀠natural moisture content tests (ASTM D
2216), Atterberg-limit tests (ASTM D 4318) and dry unit weight determinations are performed 011 selected samples. 111 addition, unconfined compression (ASTM D 2166) and pocket-penetrometer
tests are conducted on selected soil samples to evaluate the soil shear strength. Results of all laboratory tests described above are provided on the accompanying Record of Subsurface
Explomtion sheets or on summary data sheets as noted. 
􀁉􀁾􀁁7ES11NG, INC. 2209 Wisconsin Sf" Suite IGO Dallas. Texas 15229 912/620-8911 -912/263-4931 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 Client: BGW ENGINEERS, INC. Garland, Texas Project: Midway Road
Reconstruction Addison, Texas Our Report Number.: Material Description: Classification: Sample Location: Method ofTest: Soil Identification Number: Maximum Dry Unit Weight: Optimum Moisture
Content: Liquid limit: Plasticity Index: 00988 Date: 1/29/01 Dart< Brown Clay (CH) Composite Sample 6-3 to B-16 ASTM-D-698-A Composite 91.0 pef 24.5 % 77 48 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
120 115 110 105 SPECIFIC GRAVITIES OF: :;+ I .;--. I 75 '.-1-. -.1--2.60 2.70 2.80 1---.-...\;:\. 􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁾􀂭h_... . , .1\i-\ 1\ i • • I . , , , I I+. . \. ; •.\......-C\.I 1, 1
, 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% . .. , , -􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁾.. I ZERO AIR 􀁾􀀶􀁾􀁓􀁾􀁒􀁖􀁅􀁓􀁬􀂷􀀽􀁾􀂷􀀽􀁢􀁾􀀺􀁡􀀠35% 40% 45% 50% 55% MOISTURE CONTENT Figure -8 
I Our Report Number.: 00988 Date: 1/29101 Material Description: lJark Brown Clay Classification: wilh 8 percent lime added 􀁉􀁾TESTING, INC, Sample Location: Composite Sample B-3 to
B-16 2209 Wisconsin St.• Suite 100 Dal/as, Texas 75229 972/620-8911 -972/263·4937 (Metro) Method ofTest ASTM-D-698-A FAX: 972/406·8023 Soil Identification Number: CompOSite Client: GBW
ENGINEERS. INC. Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 84.5 pel Garland. Texas Optimum Moisture Content: 32.0 % Project Midway Road Reconstruction liquid limit: 61 Addison. Texas Plasticity Index:
14 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 55% 105 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% MOISTURE CONTENT 
1'-MECHANICAL LIME ALPHA TESTING, INC., STABILIZATION 2209 Wisconsin Sf" Suite 100 Dollas, Texas 76229 972/62CHl911 -972/263-4937 (MellO) FAX: 9721406-S023 35 􀁨􀁾•............ tiitf:I!
I" ' .fttffi. fi .. I ,I _, . .. . .N D E X SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION: .. . f+;" • •., .. '" . .' .' PERCENT HYDRATED LIME Composite Sample (Borings 3-16) ) 􀀸􀁲􀁯􀁷􀁾􀁃􀁬􀁡􀁹􀀠. . :. .
CLIENT: LABORATORY TEST: GBW ENGINERRS, INC. UMESERIES GARLAND, 􀁔􀁅􀁍􀁾􀀮􀀠Figure 10 Geotechnical Engineering nConstruction Materials Testing nEnvironmental Engineering nConsulting

'.nt ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION _______-'G"'B"'W"-'EN=G=INII="'BR""S"',-"I"'N"C'-'.'-_______
Boring No, B-1 Architect/Engineer Job No. _______-'0"-0"-9"'8=8________ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________..:AM!!2________ Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved
By _______-"'='-______ DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA -: -:: ----: -...:: : -...:: : : --: -= --Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in.
􀁾􀀠• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 In. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠00> -ffi Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭III Shelby Tube 00 '" 􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠Boring Method CFA 3 in. c 􀁯􀁾􀀠'" 01'-=t:.; 􀁾􀁯􀀠,
z 􀁾􀀧􀁩􀀠'" a!:'SOIL CLASSIFICATION ," ! .. 􀁾•• 􀁾􀀬􀁴::;; •.. w w 􀁯􀁾􀀠SURFACE ELEVATION => " 􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀀢􀀠:lOw 􀁾􀀠S:W , Ii:;;;' .. i on lIl· lIl .. ·00:0. 􀁸􀁾618± 􀁴􀀻􀁾􀀠wo
􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠t!;n0", !!rown very stiff CLAY (CH) with o -some sand and gravel. : _8 11 of concrete at surface. ...:: 1 ST 2' i-----------------1--:1. Reddish Brown very stiff : 1 STCLAY
(CH/CL) with some sand, 2 calcareous nodules and gravel. --hard 21 -3 I . : !-stiff below 5' . 3 i ST 4 4 ST '5 ST -----6' : -------6 iTan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) :with some silty
sand and 6 ST limestone gravel. : -stiff 6 1 -7 I • 7 : ST 8 : <3 ST -: : ! : 9 ST BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 1 • 10 : : : -: : 12 -i I "i " " 5 to :;; 0 I0 '5,V> '5 i"' : 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠:•
􀁾i *E E8 g " >􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠u·t: 􀁾􀀠.i 11" 'i:" 􀁊􀁾􀁊00 0"􀀮􀁧􀁾􀁾􀀠"0' 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀺􀀠0 0-V> 􀁾􀀭􀀻􀀬􀀠,,' 􀁾gc. 'l II II II 􀁣􀁾􀁡􀀠uc >-, ;; /i.{2 􀁾􀀮􀀠"' 􀁾􀁊􀁟􀀠"1IlfOD 􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁯􀀮􀀠2.2
39 LL=76 PL=27 PI=49 4.5+ 26 2.7 26 LL=53 PL=20 Ph33 2.2 25 1.7 24 1.0 28 LL=33 PL=15 PI=18 0.7 27 0.5 29 0.5 46 I SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SS . STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST ST -SHELeY TUBE CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION AFTER HAS, 5 FT. FT, HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP-TEXAS CONE PENHRATION
TEST WATER ON RODS 8 FT. MO -MUD DRILLING 
ient _______ ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 􀁾􀁇􀀡􀀢􀀵􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁎􀁇􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀡􀀺􀀧􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀢􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁟􀀮-=.
I"N"C..:.._______ Boring No. _______----'52.:.-2<!:-_______ Architect/Engineer Job No. _______􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀰􀀢􀀧􀁏􀁾􀀹􀁾􀀸􀀬􀀬􀀸􀀢􀁟_______ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn
By ________-'AH=________ Project Location ADDISON. TEllAS Approved By _______􀀭􀀧􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁾􀁾_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Stafted 1-21-01 HammerWt. lb•. Date
Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀠> 00 Inspector Rock Core Dia. in, Jj tie 􀁾􀀧􀁬􀁩􀁴0 80ring.Method CP'A Shelby Tube 00 3 in. 0 􀁾􀁾􀀠'"
01" 􀁾􀀮􀂧􀀠: z 41= '" c " SOIL CLASSIFICATION ·i 􀁾􀁾􀀠• 􀁉􀁬􀀦􀁾:; 􀁾.. 0.":> w w SURFACE ELEVATION it 􀁾􀀠E v" 􀁾􀁾􀀠:J:w "w =<'lt:<i lE· 0 􀁾.. 􀁾􀀠.0 618± wu «0 "'?: If. .!!! ",0
O<ll <IlZ ... IIl -Brown hard CLAY(CH) with some o -= sand and gravel. ---= 􀀭􀀷􀁾􀀷􀀵􀀧􀂷􀀠of concrete at surface. --1 ST ---2' = -:: -----------------.2 _ Reddish Brown and Tan very
i = stiff CLAY (CH/CL) with some =I 2 . ST sand, calcareous nodules and -I gravel. -hard 2'-3 1 • -i-stiff below 5'. = 3 1 ST -:: 4 _ ! -= 4 1 ST 5' -----------------= 5 ; ST -= Tan
firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) 6 _ = with some silty sand and = 6 STlimestone gravel. ---very stiff 51-6 t. -stiff 6 f _7' . --J 7 ST -: 8 􀁾􀀠""' = 8 ST --= --9 ST., -10 􀁾􀀠BOTTOM OF TEST
BORING AT 10 I. 􀁾􀀠-, ""'ii.., ! . . . .. . ..1l!-.-.1 :; .,. ," .. ".' .....,_. .... i ... Q iii:•!:: ii 0 l0 .2 U " '" ';; <Il i I i 􀁾􀀠.<•• " "il. Ii i •"I􀀭􀁾􀁲􀁧E E E0 g '" C
􀁾􀀺􀁩􀀭􀀻v Ii' o. •• 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧." Cot ;to 00 if", 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀠0 􀁾􀁾􀀠u cr.'2 . ::;0:£􀁪􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾§."2 II « IIoc ,.. 􀁾':;;0 00 ," 􀁾􀁾􀀭:><Ill..laD 􀁾.... 4.5+ 33 LL=68 PL=37 Ph31
4.5+ 26 3.5 22 2.5 20 2.2 21 . 1.2 24 O.S 29 O.S 30 0.5 32 ...... SAMPLER TYPE 01U)UNDvtATER OBSERVATIONS BORlNa METHOD.. -;,"" 55 -STANOAilD PENETRAliON TEST HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERSAT
COMPLETION 5 FT.ST -SHELBY TUBE CFA -CONTINUOUS FUGHT AUGERS CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRs.. FT. DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD -MUD DRILLINGWATER ON
RODS 8 FT. 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ant _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁅􀁎􀁇􀀽􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁅􀀽􀁅􀁒􀀽􀁾􀁓􀁌􀀮-"'I."N"
'C"'._______ Boring No. ________􀁂􀁾􀀭􀀽􀁟􀀳________ Architect/Engineer Job No. ________􀁏􀀢􀀢􀁏􀀽􀀹􀁾􀀸􀁾􀀸________ Proiect Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By AM Project Location
ADDISON. TEXAS Approved By _______--"'D"'AL"'-_______ DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA -: =-.:: -: -: -: --: -: --=-Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠HammerWt. Ibs Date Completed
􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠Orin Foreman EDI Spoon Sample OD """ in, • 􀁡􀁾> Rock Core Dia. in. "" -iii 􀁾􀀠Inspector '" :" Shelby Tube 00 3 in. 8 ... ,. 1i 􀁾􀀠80ring Method
CFA 􀁴􀀳􀁾􀀠􀀢􀁾􀀠N 'P r: 0 􀁾􀀠0 • 􀁾􀀠x 􀁾.f! to 􀁾􀀠;; 􀁾􀀠z q;m " If. 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁥􀀭􀁧'" c' • E E .ESOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀁾􀀠l! • 0 2 E 􀀮􀁾􀀠::I';.... " 􀁾􀀢􀀠J,> ..J _ !: c " • ! U"::;
• "2 " c_ >=" c 􀁾􀀧􀁴􀀻􀁾0• 􀁾􀀠.u. " !!j w 0" \l 􀀮􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀠"-0-"8 £!o!! <eSURFACE eSURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀠"'!!j ..J C 􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁪􀁾􀀠'2 ' ..JO-iI:.. O-w 8 -" '" c =>j! !Ii:..:
::;. ::;0. ·c 􀀸􀀻􀁾􀀠., ,li x. 'is '''' 􀁾􀀠. 618± 􀁉􀁩􀁩􀁾􀀠wu ..:0 􀁾􀀱􀀺􀀠0C'H &.::. ,0 >= -'-'e(l) "'z .. ...'" '" ::HIlIe" ..J.... Brown hard Lime Treated 0 CLAY (CH) with some
sand and = calcareous nodules and gravel. _8 1t of concrete at surface. -: 1 • ST 4.5+ 38 LL=57 : ! PL=36 l?I=21 2 i i 2 1 ST 4.0 31 3'--------------!Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) with :
some sandI calcareous nodules : 3 1 ST 2.7 30 and gravel. -reddish brown below 4' . 4 I -stiff belOW 5' . 4 1ST 3.2 22 = ! : 5 i ST 1.7 22 -' 6'--------------6 Tan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY
(eL) with some silty Band and 6 ST 1.5 25 limestone gravel. -stiff 6 I -7 I. = = 7 1ST 0.5 26 8 :: : 8 ST 0.7 3.2 -. 􀁾􀀠-., 9 ! ST 0.5 35 --BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 1 • -1 10 i :
-:: : 12 -GROUNDWATER OBS!RVATIONS AT COMPLETION 5.5 FT. AFTER HRSFT. WATER ON RODS B FT" i I SAMJ>LEfI TYPE BORING METHOD SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUG"ERS ST
SHELBY TUBE CFA· CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 'ent _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁓􀁾􀁗􀀢􀁟􀀧􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀺􀁉􀀡􀀺􀀺􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁒􀁾􀁾􀁓􀁌􀀧􀁟􀀽􀁉
􀁎􀀽􀁃􀀢􀁟􀀮_______ Boring No. _________S"'-:-,,4-------Architect/EngineerJob No. _______􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀹􀁩􀀡􀀮􀁡􀀽􀀸________ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________-'AM=________ Project location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By ________DAL=""-_______
TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION I Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample OD in.
􀁾􀀠.􀁾􀀠> 00 Rock Core Dia. in. ,. 􀁾􀁡􀀻􀀠Inspector '" 􀁾􀀭3 0 >-. Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube DD in. a c· N 01-.; H z Ii; '" C' SOIL CLASSIFICATION c 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀀧􀁾􀀠􀁑􀀮􀁾􀀠0 􀁾􀁾􀀠::E
􀁾.. 8"'" w 􀁾SURFACE ELEVATION it 􀁩􀀽􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠•.. "w 􀁾􀀠0", 􀀡􀁨􀁾􀀠::E. 􀁾􀁾􀀠i 0Cx. 618± I-W ",0 If t!!c;,<nO Q", """ 􀁾􀀠Brown hard CLAY(CH) with some 0 sand and calcareous
nodules and to 0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠gravel. -=--7.75" of concrete at surface. 1 ST : -􀁾􀀠--:: 2 􀁾􀀠-2 ST -3' ------,---------1---= 3 i ST Reddish Brown and Tan very stiff CLAY (CH/CL) with some
:silty sand. calcareous nodules -:: and gravel. -hard 3 I _4 1 • 4 _ -stiff below 5' .: = 4 ! ST --i 5 , ST 6' -6 _ ! -----------------6 i ST Tan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) : with some
silty sand and : limestone gravel. -! --:: : 7 1ST-: i -8 -i 8 ST -:: , i -: 9 ST -: BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I * lO _ :: -=-: -1:4 -u. 0 ! 􀁾􀀠i; l-E c ,9II, '" '0 '" •> 􀀮􀁾􀀠•
•Ii •"-'*E• 􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀮􀁾􀁾E .E0 g 􀀬􀁓􀁾􀀻􀀮v ,Il' ....Jo·':i:., •'0 It 􀁃􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬􀀠g 􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾• .u. 􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠0.0' V 􀁏􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠'f . :::::iD:a: 􀀸􀁾􀀢􀀠􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠11 d IIc-a Q
a Cia 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀺􀀱􀁾􀁯􀀺",/ill-I?.... 4.5+ 3l 4.0 33 4.0 25 3.:4 20 3.:4 23 0.7 26 0.7 29 0.5 30 0.5 28 I I SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SS -STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST ST • SHELBY TUBE CA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION 4 .5 FT. AFTER HRS. FT. HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION
TEST WATER ON RODS 7 FT. MD -MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION(972) 620-8911 jenl ______ .... 􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀡􀀧􀀡􀁗􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁟􀁅􀀧􀁂􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁉􀁣􀀡􀀺􀀧􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀺􀁳􀀺􀁾􀁒􀀻􀀻�
�􀁓􀁾􀀬􀁣􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁉􀀻􀀡􀁎C"'.'_________ Architect/Engineer Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RlICONS'l'RUCTION Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Oate Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. lb•. Date Completed
1-21-01 Hammer Drop in, 􀁾􀀠DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Drill Foreman BDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀢􀁾􀀠00 iii! Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀮􀁾􀀠'" ... :; Boring Method CFA Shelby
Tube 00 :3 8in. 􀁳􀁾N SOIL CLASSIFICATION I ! SURFACE ELEVATION I 617± ! Brown hard Lime Treated CLAY (CH) with some sand and -= calcareous nodules. -8" of concrete at surface. --:::
--------------Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) = with some sand. --brown with calcareous nodules below 4' . -tannish brown below S' • -= = ---= --􀁾􀀠-.: --: BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT
􀁾􀁏􀀠I. : 􀁾􀀮􀀠I,. /:. ; . SS -􀁓􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁗􀁄􀁾􀀺􀁊􀁅􀁔􀁒􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠TEST ST • SHELBY rilBe CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST I " 􀀮􀁾􀂧􀀠I :::;';::;z ••
􀁾􀀠c" oS cf!•• 􀁾􀁬:!; . •.. 􀀸􀁾" w w 􀁩􀁾􀀠􀀺􀁊􀀺􀁾􀀠'" '" E.. "w • .'0!ii1l 􀁾􀁯􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠0 ·c :f 􀁾􀁥1;;:3 0", "'Z .... '" o -: -= i 1 ST-'"2' -I --2 􀁾􀀠= -::: '2 ST = -4 _ : -=
3 ST ----6 : : -= 4 ST : -8 _ : -= 5 ST : : 10 _ --12 􀁾􀀠" 􀁾􀀠to 1;; 􀁾􀀠c .2 i u 􀁾􀀠'" 'a '" . ! .,•.> .'"."•• :. •! ..􀁾􀀠•" E lI' 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁅􀀧􀁧E E0 0 10 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀨􀁾u >.S!' 11' or
􀁾􀁾􀀠• 􀁾􀀠;2.l;:l:g.u. S:.-'" 8 􀁾.. ..S.J: cr "'Q!' 􀁧􀁾􀁥􀀮'OW l0 "2 .;:).2 :.o • II II W 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠!lIS 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀻􀀠10 i s: "''''""'... ..... 0"' "'.... 4.5+ 37 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀵􀀶􀀠􀁐􀁌􀁾􀀳􀀵􀀠􀁐􀁉􀁾􀀲􀀱􀀠3
.0 40 3.2 29 .-'. 􀀺􀁾􀀠<:"' -.;:,.. 3.2 28 3.0 28 ..... . .. J·.i :'''r .. • .. .i:. .. GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS. FT. WATER ON RODS NONE FT. Boring No.
B-5 Job No. _______-'0"'0"'9:::;8"'8"-_______ Drawn By Approved By AM ________D"'AL""_______ TEST DATA BORING METHOD HSA'-HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN
CASINGS MD -MUD DRIUlNG 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONi\. jent ___􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁅􀁎􀁇􀀽􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀢􀀬􀁓􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀬-=I"'N"'C
:.!._______ 60ring No. B-6 Architect/Engineer Job No. ________􀀧􀀡􀀰􀀧􀀡􀀰􀁦􀀡􀀮􀀹􀁾􀀸􀁾􀀸________ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn 6y ________-'1IM=________ Project Location
______-'ADD"""'.ISON, TEXAS Approved 6y _______􀀮􀀲􀀧􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁾􀀡􀀭______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION -= = -: : --: : -= -: -: : -= --:: -Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt.
lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hamme! Drop in. .;;• Orlll Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠00 􀁾􀀠, -iii Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠Shelby Tube OD 3 0 Boring Method
CFA in. 􀁾􀀠􀁧􀁾'i g I " 􀁾􀀧􀁩Z 0> C"SOIL CLASSIFICATION c 􀁤􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀠! 􀀮􀁾• .􀁾􀀠:;; 􀁾􀀠co... 0" SURFACE ELEVATION ::> w w uc>-z zw 􀁾􀀠Itw 1'! 􀀽􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀠􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠a. •&5 ::ll.
::llo. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩617± >-w ..0 􀀻􀁊􀁩􀁾􀀠If i >-<li<nO Om UlZ Brown very Dense SAND (SP) SP) with 0 some gravel and clay. -811 of concrete at surface. -: 1 ST 13 : --------2' -------2 _
Brown very stiff CLAY{CHl with some sand. -tannish brown with calcareous )Ilooules and gravel below 4' . -2 ST -tannish brown below 8' . 4 _ : -= 3 ST : 6 : -: 4 ST : a -5 ST ! 10 BOTTOM
OF TEST BORING AT 10' . -= , -II = 12 -, , .... c. :l 0 '= 􀁾􀀠;:. c 'fi, <n ·0 '" i I , !, 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠i I•0 • •􀁾􀀠;; •c. E ... 􀀬􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠-gE Z0 g 0> 1'! .S:::i;.u ." 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠{f.
.. lj :g'iE" c_ 􀁾􀀮􀀠c• ..... -" .3 ::lftJ:ii 􀀱􀁾􀀠a." :3"0:£I$!(! 'c . 􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠.. g:!::c ",," Ii IJ II IIoc 􀀺􀀾􀁕􀁩􀁾􀀠tl{;. 0& 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁡􀀺􀀠-30 1.2 2.7 80 34 LL=80 PL=30 PI=50
3.7 26 3.0 24 LL=66 PL=24 PI=42 2.2 29 SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD 5S • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST -SHELBY TUBE CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPlETION DRY
FT. AFTER HRS. FT. HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUG.ERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD -MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION :ient _______􀀮􀀮􀁯􀁇􀁾􀀸􀁾􀁗􀀧􀀡􀁟􀀧􀁂􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀻􀀬􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀮􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀧􀁟�
�􀀭􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀢􀁟􀀮_______ Boring No. 8-7 Architect/Engineer Job No. ________􀀰􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀹􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀸􀀡􀀡􀀲􀀮􀀸________ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________..!AH""'________
Project Location ADDISON,-TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRIlliNG AND SAMPLING INFORMATION 5S -STANOARb PENETRATION TEST HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERSAT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST . SHELBY TUBE
CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRs.. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS rcp· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRIUJNG : 􀁾􀀠--:: : 􀁾􀀠--:
..:. --:: : 􀁾􀀠: -: : ---Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. lb•. -" ifDate Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 0 Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. c 􀀭􀁾􀀠Qo> -ffi Inspector Rock Core
Dia. in. iii :-Shelby Tube 00 3 in. g .... ;,; Boring Method CFA 􀁧􀁾'" 0 􀁴􀁾􀀠z 1010 􀁾􀀠0_ SOil CLASSIFICATION 􀀮􀁾􀀠.-.. 􀁾􀀠0 􀁀􀁾::; •.. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION '" ,. ,. 􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁾􀀠"',.
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E !i:<i .. "w • some sand and gravel. Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) :ici :=;.. l x. 619± 􀁴􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁴􀁁􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁬",2 Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with 0 :-8.25" of concrete
at surface. -1 ST -----------------2'f---2 with some sandi calcareous :nodules and a trace of 􀁧􀁲􀁡􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁾􀀠-brown below 6' . -:: 2 ST . ! -tannish brown below 8' . 4 . -:: 3 ST :
6 --:: 4· 1ST : i 8' 8 -, 1--------􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠-----. Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. : 5 'TCP llQ. 3.3" BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I 􀁾􀀠10 _ : ..:.. 􀁾􀀮􀀠. 􀁾􀀠i 12 :-. SAMPLER
TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BOAING METHOD .. 0., r" . .. . 􀁾􀀠<> ! :;; 0... c <fi oil l •.2 0 0 􀁾􀀠•• c 1i 11' 􀁾􀁦􀁾E E .EQ g c: l!, ioo ::i-;:! 􀀮􀁾U .,; c " 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠" .. S:. "0--Uc_
'51;;';;􀁣􀁾􀀠-'" 0'Ew it 0 􀁧􀁾􀁡􀀺511g00 ..'" d II N 􀁣􀁾􀁧􀀠j,{!. _0 ::lita::"''''... aD 2.5 26 3.7 27 3.2 28 . 3.0 24 I 5 
___ 'ient ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION _______􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀁟􀀡􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀧􀀡􀀺􀁉􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁎􀁬􀀡􀁾􀁂􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀠􀀭�
�􀁉􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀮􀀠_______ Boring No. B-8 Architect/Engineer Job No. 00988 Project Name MJ:DWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________.!AH!:!'!.________ Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS
Approved By ________DAL=""-_______ TEST DATA 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. ___140="-__ Ibs,r---r----,---,----,,---,---,---,r-----. DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started -=-"-.___Hammer
Drop ___ 30 in, ______ in.Date Completed 1-21-01 EDI Spoon Sample 00 ___-,____ in, Drill Foreman Rock Core Dia. Inspector ___-=-___ in.Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 ISOIL CLASSIFICATION
1-==-=-=-::-:====:----,' 􀁾􀀠CLAY (CH) with some sand and _ gravel. -8.5" of concrete at _ 􀁜􀁓􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁩􀀽􀁾􀁃􀁴􀀺􀀻..: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I ... '" "'''jCi!1L ' t-;;c 􀁴􀀻􀁾􀀠! 􀁾􀁾􀀠i
i ST SURFACE ELEVATION 619± Brown hard Lime Treated : Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CLAY(CH) : with sand laminations. _ -with limestone seamS below 6'. = Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONl!.
BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . =---: -:: -..::. : = -= ----= : ..::. j 2' 8' i 5-= 3 i ST -4 ST -10 .., -1 -1 -1 -j 5 TCP 􀁾􀀠j 15= -: 20 : : -25 -= : ..::. -30 --􀁾􀀠•> " 􀁾􀀠00 in•
ile "-0t--. c· ,>• ~ 0'" ! " " "".; z c " 0 " 􀁾􀀠E• 􀁾􀀠􀀧􀁾􀀶􀀠t:: • i􀁩􀁩􀀻􀀢􀁾􀀠a <Ic" Ii E lE􀀦􀀺􀁾􀀠f-• u ,!!, E c ! • I !!!􀁾􀁬􀀠i 0 i ... 􀁾􀀮􀀠c 08"2 'fl .. 0': " -" i u􀁾􀁾􀀠S!!!
§:i􀀽􀁾􀀠" go," 􀁾􀀮􀀠.!!oc:;§ '" cf:§ ;: .. 􀁾􀀠􀁣􀁾... en Jl ",os... i.t:. ;:: -3.7 2.7 2.7 23 29 28 26 100 3" 9 I I I LL=46 PL=29 PI=17 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SAIII!!MR
TYPi! SS -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS ST -SHELBY TUBE CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRs.. FT. DC -DRIVEN
CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS NONl! FT. 
J' ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF􀀧􀁊􀀧􀀧􀀠2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 "". Dallas, Texas 7 5229 􀁾􀀠(972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .;eot 􀁾􀁟..􀁾􀀠__􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁇􀁂􀁗􀀠􀁅􀁎􀁇􀁊􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀡􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾
􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁊􀀺􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀻􀁎􀁾􀁃􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Boriog No. B-9 ArchitectlEngineer 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾__􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾Job No. _______􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀻􀁏􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀹􀁾􀀸􀁾􀀸________
Project Name ____􀁾􀁍􀀧􀀡􀀡􀁊􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁄􀁯􀀧􀀮􀀧􀁗􀀧􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀀢􀀢􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁟􀀧􀁒􀁅􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁏􀀽􀁎􀀽􀁓􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁒􀀧􀀽􀁕􀁾􀁃􀁔􀀺􀀽􀀮􀀺􀀡􀁊􀀺􀀺􀀡􀀺􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭Drawn By ________􀁾􀁁􀁍􀀽________
Project Location ADDISONI TEXAS Approved By DAL. TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠• Orm Foreman
EDJ: Spoon Sample OD in. 􀁾􀀠,300 􀁾􀀠iii!Inspector Rock Core Oia. in. >-t;3 8Boring Method CPA Shelby Tube 00 in, 􀁡􀁾N -' -: -: : 􀁾􀀠-.., 􀁾􀀠. ---􀁾􀀠=: -:: --..:. : =--:: : ..:.
-..:. 􀁾􀀠I SOIL CLASSIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION 618± Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated CLAY (CH) with some sand. calcareous nodules and gravel. -9 11 of concrete at surface -------------'Dark
Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with sand laminations and a trace of calcareous nodules. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . .; wc I 􀁾􀀧􀁾z '" ii' 􀀬􀁾􀀠.. i! 􀁾􀀠"if.::; i " a"w w .. ::> E 􀁯􀁾1-%
􀀺􀁣􀁾􀀠-' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁉􀀻􀀺􀀠.. .. w ! :-g1;:", ?id ::eo.. x.I-W wo 􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀠{!tiiu>o OU> u>Z 0 --1 ST 2' : --2 --2 ST i : 4 _ -3 ST . 6 , : -4· ST 8 _ : -5 : ST 10 _ --.., -I j12 -I u.
0. "􀁾􀀠Ii I-c 0 ] ;g I 􀁾􀀠!>."􀁾􀀠II x1i 􀁾􀀠" , '" 􀀧􀁲􀁲􀁾E I E E0 0 EU " 􀀬􀁾􀀠'-...J >" -' '" " .; 􀁾􀀠... 3:. E 􀀺􀁑􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀠􀁾􀀠u. 􀁾􀁵􀀮􀀠"-cr -" 0 􀀧􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀠􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠'c .
u 5n:£_U>ac:• 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀠􀀺􀀺􀁊􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁣􀀠uC 􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀠; 1;) II n II _0 &.{!. 13: :jito:"'<010_ 0.9 1.2 79 37 LL=55 I?L=32 I?I=23 2.2 33 2.2 35 2.2 31 2.2 31 SAMPLER TYPE . GROUNDWATER
OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SS • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST -SHELBY TUBE CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS. FT. HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD -MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ;ent _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁂􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀡􀀧􀀺􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁂􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁟�
�􀁉􀀺􀀡􀀺􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁟􀁟______ Boring No. :8-10 Architect/Engine.r Job No. _______􀁾􀀰􀁾􀀰􀀢􀀭􀀹􀁾􀁡􀁾􀁡􀁌_______ Project Name KIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________-'lIH=________
Project Location ADDl:SON# TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILliNG AND SAMPLING INFORMATION GROUNDWATER oIj$ERVAT(O'illS BQIlINO MJmiOD Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. lb•. Date Completed
1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. ...• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠00 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁀Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠Shelby Tub. 00 3 in. 0 Boring Method CPA 0 c· N 0>--= -.:
= .. -j -I --I--.: --: -.: --: --: I SOil CLASSIFICATION ! SURFACE ELEVATION 618± Brown hard Lime Treated CLAY(CH) with some sand, calcareous nodules and gravel. 􀁾􀀸􀁴􀀱􀀠of concrete
at surface r -with lime to 17". r 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with Band laminations. -stiff with limestone gravel below S' . BOTTOM OF TEST BORING
AT 10' . ;. )' . .. ,. "f·'· . -􀀬􀁾.. ' •... 􀀢􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀧􀀢􀀠" ".-. . $AI\llJi\.Mi1Y.PE '. I 􀀮􀁾􀀠c .; 􀁾􀀮􀁧I z ." 􀁩􀁄􀁾􀀠'" ihc a.!.. ••::; I • co. w w 0. 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀠f-.e0."::> 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠i
o. f-:J: :3f;a: Ii: < II 0. !!!I!!􀁾􀁣􀁩􀀠l x.,..w wo 􀀻􀁊􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁶􀀬IDO O<n <nZ o -jST= -=3 ' 2 ! ST----i 5-: i3 1 ST = I 4 • ST -.. 5 ST 10 : = -: : 15 --= = -20 -= --= =-25 -: :
--: . -30 ..., ' . 􀁾􀀠, c 􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠", ", ' -:'-U. 0-... 􀁾􀀠!:: tl.. C ,ID '5.. ••••􀁾􀀠􀁾.. x•is. • lI' 􀀮􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀭􀁧E E .l'0 g . 􀁾􀀮􀀠.5;:J ;, 0 .f!' .,Ju·n '0 i ! . .. 1:i•
.<1: 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀧􀁴􀁾􀀢􀁚􀀻􀀠􀁾􀁍􀀠0.", 􀁾􀀢􀀠O. ",."'E: • o· ::Hi: a:,,1/1 􀀻􀀺􀀩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁧􀁦􀁾􀀠􀁩􀀡􀁾􀀠> . • II II It 5u;t2 £{? 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀭0-" 􀁾.... 4.5+ 38 LL=53 PL=38 2.5 35
PI=17 3.0 36 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀸􀀳􀀠􀁐􀁌􀁾􀀳􀀱􀀠2.0 29 PI=S2 1.5 33 .. ,,' ! HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS SS • STAr'ltfAAO PEtilETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT FLIGHT AUGERS
CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER 5T • SH fLaY Tuse AFTER HRS. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TeXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRIlliNG 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 76229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION lent _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀢􀁟􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀀡􀀡􀁥􀀮􀁅􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀡􀀮
􀀮􀀮􀁟􀀽􀁉􀀡􀀡􀁎􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁃􀁃􀀡􀀮_______ Boring No. B-11 ArcMect/Englneer Job No, _______􀀭􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀹􀀬􀀬􀀸􀁾􀀸􀁾_______ Project Name KIDWAY ROAD RECONSTR'O'CTION Drawn By ________􀁾􀁁􀁋􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀮
________ Approved By _______􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁄􀁾􀁁􀁉􀀮􀀮􀁾_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION SAMl'l..ER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD 5S -STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS AT COMPLETION DRY fT. CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER ST -SHELBY TU BE AFTER HRS. FT. DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION
TEST MD -MUD DRILLING WATER ON RODS NONE FT. = -= -= : : --= : --:: = -= -: -: ------Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. ;t '" DrfIJ Foreman EOI
Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠> 00 Rock Core Dia. in. • :§.Inspector in Shelby Tube 00 in. a .... " Boring Method CPA 3 0 OW N 0 ....';::; c 0 E.2 ! z --•• 􀁾􀀠0_ SOIL CLASSIFICATION
0 ••." "-i0 ::E • 􀁾􀀢􀀭"-􀁯􀁾::> "' w SURFACE ELEVATION .... '" :x:w 􀁾􀀠a'w E 􀀺􀀡􀁾:2!i: !i:<I "-Wlid ::Eo. 0 ·c 632± .... w wu 􀁾􀁾􀀠I x. (1)0 0(1) (l)Z "-,?!./ii Dark Brown stiff
CLAY (CH) with o _ some sand. : -811 of concrete at surface -= 1 ST 2' r-----------------i---2 _ : ,Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) -= 2 ST-with some sand and a trace of calcareous nodules
and gravel. 4 _ : -= 3 ST 6 _ = -= 4, ST : ----------------8' ----a _ Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with some silty sand : and gravel. -= 5 ST : : 10 : : ----12 -􀁾􀀠0. ! 0
t,;•.... BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I. to c I 􀂧􀁉􀁄􀁾􀀠􀀺􀀺􀀾􀁾􀀠0 Ij 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀠, <I) '5 <I) , 􀁾􀀠'," 0 􀁾• ii x 0; •:; 11< 􀀬􀁴􀀺􀀺􀁲􀁾E E 􀁾• 0 E .E:.J;'u 􀁾􀀠I" • 􀁾􀀠e 􀁾􀀠I0,
􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾c-Iii􀁤􀀺􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁈􀀠􀀢􀁧􀁾􀀠g.0.bi 􀁾􀁩􀁲􀀮􀂣􀀠􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠,.. 􀀺􀀵􀁾􀀡􀀠! 􀁾􀁉􀀭0-<> o§ ?: .. 􀁾􀁋􀁩􀁩􀀺􀀠1.7 34 2.5 n 3.0 32 2.5 38 4.5+ 18 I 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION(972) 620·8911 ent _______􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁥􀀡􀁗􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀧􀁅􀁎􀁇􀀽􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁎􀁅􀀽􀁅􀀽􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁓􀁌􀀬􀁟􀀧􀁉􀀢
􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀮_______ Boring No. B-12 Architect/Engineer Job No. ________􀁏􀁾􀁏􀀢􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀹􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀸􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀸________ Project Name ____􀀡􀀧􀁣􀁍􀁉􀁾􀁄􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀠ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
Drawn By ________􀀮􀀡􀀮􀁁􀁍􀁾________ Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By _______􀀭􀀢􀀧􀁄􀁾􀁁􀁌􀁾_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Oate Started 1-21-01 HammerWt.
Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. i%• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. w 􀀢􀁾􀀠00 Rock Core Oia. 􀁾􀀠-a; Inspector in. "w 􀁾􀁴􀁉􀀠Boring Method CPA Shelby Tube 00 3 in.
0 c e 􀁾􀀠0>--c ci i'!z '" ii"SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀀮􀁾􀀠.. 􀁾􀀠• 􀁾􀁑􀀠:l! • co. r---.. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION " w w u" 􀁾􀁴􀀠􀁬􀀺􀁾􀀠.0 .0 E •.. 􀁾􀁾􀀠• :1!Iii« 􀁾􀁣􀁩􀀠£ -.632± 1-" 􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠•
􀁾􀁣􀁩􀁩<1)O wZ .. Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated o • CLAY (CH) with some some sand. -8 11 of concrete at surface -: -1 ! ST -:-i2' 2 • -----------------Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH)
with sand laminations. --stiff .2 t -4 t • -2 ST , = ..:: 4 -: --..:: 3 ST -= -: 6 : ..:: -4 ST r----------------1-7,;.5";' : Tannish Brown very stiff . -CALCAAEOUS CLAY (CL) with aome
8 􀁾􀀠silty and and gravel. " .' : ..-.. : ..:: : ..:: ; ST5 =-10 BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . --) , ."-'\, :l2' . ; '.,:, , ' , .,'. .... .. QRO\.!NOW/I.'tER OBSERVATIONSSAMPLER TYPE
u"􀁾􀀠!:: ii IC ,9 tl, '" ;g ; Q,.•• x 􀁾􀀠l!l 0 0 'I' 􀀬􀀧􀀺􀀻􀀨􀀮􀁾􀀭􀁧E E .c0 g '" E ;5:1;U Ii :!! ... ';; Q :g.g:g" :;;.., E• oU8 0" • 􀁾􀀭􀁳􀁧􀀠"s1! -􀁧􀁴􀁩􀀺􀁾'c " i5 @''2 j. 􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠l!co
oc • ' .. 􀀺􀂧􀁾􀁴􀀡􀀠£t!. -" ;; -'-'c-"-'.... 0.6 1.2 78 40 LL=60 PL=23 PI=37 1.7 35 2.0 34 LL=46 PL=29 PI=17 . 2.0 34 3.0 22 LL=38 PL=18 PI=20 ; .,.' 􀁾􀁒􀁉􀁎􀁇􀀠METHOD . '" .... HSA
• HOllOW STEM AUGERSSS • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER ST • SHELBY ruBE AFTER HRS. FT. OC • DRIVEN CASINGS
TCP· TeXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
J' ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀱􀀮2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 100 "", Dallas, Texas 75229 􀁾􀀠(972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION lent 􀁾􀁾.._ ..􀁾.. _.GBW 􀁂􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀬􀀺􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀢􀀬􀁅􀁾􀁒�
�􀀻􀀺􀁓􀀡􀀮􀀡􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀡􀁉􀀺􀀡􀁎􀀧􀀮􀀧􀀺􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀬􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀠Boring No. B-13 Architect/Engineer Job No. _______-'0"'0".9".8".8"-_______ Project Name MIOW;AY ROJU) RECONSTRUCTION
Drawn By ________..::All/I=________ PrOject Location __.__..􀁟􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁊􀁕􀀩􀁏􀁉􀁓􀁏􀁎􀀬􀀠'fEnS Approved By _______-"'O"AL"'-_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION : -...::
---=--:: -...: = =----...: ---:: : --Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. 140 lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾.. Drill Foreman EOI Spoon Sample 00 in. • 􀁾􀁾􀀠> 00 Inspector
Rock Core Dis. in. -" 􀁾􀁾􀀠'" 􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀠Shelby Tube 00 3 In. c Boring Method CF;A 0 c· N 01Q 􀁾􀁡􀀠I I z 􀁾􀀧􀁧􀀠D 􀁣􀁾􀀠SOIL CLASSIFICATION -Ii 􀀮􀁾.. 􀁾􀀠I !l 􀁾􀁬lE:;, W W .. 0."
SURFACE ELEVATION 􀀡􀀻􀀨􀁾􀀠,"W 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠!! 􀁵􀁾􀀠􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠.. o..w • .." 0:0.. .. < lE. ::;.. u "c<0 􀁾􀀠x.633± I-W wu 􀀼􀁉􀁊􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀯􀁩􀁪",0 0", "'Z .. Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated 0
: CLAY (CFI) with some sand. :_8 11 of concrete at surface. 􀁾􀀠1 ST 2' -------------------2 -Dark Brown stiff CLAY(CFI) with sand laminations. --2 ST -4 _ : ...:: 3 ST :6' 1------􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠-------6
_ Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with limestone seams. : ...:: 4' ST S' ---------------8 : : Tan weathered SFIALY LIMESTONE. i ! : 5 TCP 100 -1"-BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10'
. 10 _ : ....=1 -' • I ..., l12 -i .. "'iii 0 t:: :;;•l-c 􀀮􀁾􀀠, '" 􀁾􀀠0 '" I •.0 " " 􀁾􀀠•!l. •,. "# 􀁾􀁲􀀡􀀺E E .E0 0 !!ll. -¥' --.....I >U i 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠0'." 3: . 􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀮􀁾• ;;:
ii;;: 􀁾􀁈􀀠.. " -"" 8 g.3'!i 'c' 􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁩􀁲􀀮􀁾SC 􀀺􀀾􀁾􀀠l! 􀁧􀁾􀁡􀀠nC II b I ,.. •,f{'. i 013 3: 􀁾􀁾􀀭:;''''1􀁾.... 1.1 1.2 70 42 LL;79 I?L;38 I?I;41 1.5 35 1.5 34 4.5+ 24 18
􀁓􀁁􀁍􀁐􀀱􀁾􀁔􀁙􀁐􀁅􀀠GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SS -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST -SHELBY TUBE CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS. FT. HSA -HOLLOW
STEM AUG.ERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD -MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dailas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .nt SEW BNSIDERS, INC. Boring No. E-14 ________________________________
JobNo. ____________􀁾􀀰􀁾􀀰􀁾􀀹􀁾􀀸􀀸􀁾___________Architect/Engineer Drawn By ________􀁾􀁁􀁋􀁾_________Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Approved By _______􀀮􀀺􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁾􀀧􀁟􀁟______Project
location __.. ADDISON, TEXAS TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION . -: -Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 lb•. Date Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀀱􀀠Hammer Drop 30 in. ff 􀁾􀀠Drill
foreman ROI Spoon Sample 00 in. • 􀀭􀁾􀀠> 00 Inspector Rock Core 􀁄􀁩􀁾􀁬􀀬􀀠in. 􀁾􀀠􀁴􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀠u. 􀁾􀁴􀀻􀀻􀀠u Shelby Tube 00 3 in. a 􀁾Boring Method CFA ?l c,! '"'ic a ." ci 0 􀁾􀀠•_E
t: • •z C;U; 0. :;; "$. 􀀬􀁴􀀧􀁾􀁾0> C -;; E E ];SOIL CLASSIFICATION .S 􀀺􀁾􀀠• 0 e E £;:::J ,. 0 I-U ;,. 􀀬􀁾􀀠!'l 􀁾􀀮􀁓􀂷􀀵0 􀁾􀁯􀁦􀀠§:; m 11 u:. 􀁾􀁵􀀺􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀠c 􀀳􀁴􀀮􀁩􀂷􀁾..
(ll! 0 SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀺􀁴􀀺􀀠w W "g ..!i.e a 0..,. --U I:T..!!:! 00 :t:w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E =,g , 􀁥􀁾􀀠;,<11 §:i :.::l"-a;: ;;!I;: I;::i! 0. 􀀡􀁩􀁾􀀠• <n !::s. 􀁾􀀠gc m 􀁾􀀰􀀠.!! H II
II 􀁾􀀢􀀠'a ·c Us >. 634± t-w wU «0 􀁾􀁾􀀠r::!; 0 5.1l l: 􀁾􀁾􀀭<nO O<n <nZ 1-0; '" "<nt-it-􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁯􀀮􀀠Dark Brown very stiff Lime o -Treated CLAY(CH) with some --sand. of concrete at-8
11 -surface * --1 ST 2.0 36 :-2' -i-------------------2 _ I Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CH)= with sand laminations. : ...:: -: ...:: --: -:: : ..::. ---brown below 4' . 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-------Tan
weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 1 • : ..::. -2 i ST -.. 4 _ : 5'1---..::. 3 ST : I -6 _ -..::. : : 8-:: : -4 TCP 100 1.511 10 -: 12 I 2.2 30 2.2 30 18 I SAMPLER
TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SS • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUG.ERSAT COMPLETION DRY FT.ST • SHELBY TUBE CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA • CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRs.. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS NOD FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ,ent ________􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀀸􀁾􀁗􀀧􀀡􀁟􀁊􀁉􀀡􀁎􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁇􀀧􀀡􀀡􀁣􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁒􀀡􀀻􀀡􀁓
􀁌􀀧􀁟􀀢􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀮_______ Boring No. _______-:-'8"'-:.;1,,5<-_______ Architect/Engineer Job No. _______􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀺􀀰􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀰􀁾􀀹􀁾􀀸􀀡􀀧􀀮􀀸􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮_______ Project Name
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________􀀭􀀧􀁁􀁍􀁾________ Project Location ADDISON. 􀁔􀁬􀀡􀀡􀁘􀁁􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀡􀁓􀀬􀀭______ Approved By _______-=<D"'AL=-_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING
INFORMATION Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop Drilt Foreman BDI Spoon Sample 00 Inspector Rock Core Dia. Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SURFACE ELEVATION 635± -Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) -with some sand and a trace of : gravel. --8.25" of concrete at surface -􀁾􀀠-: ..:. --: : -: : ..:. -brown with calcareous nodules
below 8'. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 1.0'. : ...:. -':.' ! 3 :>:w 􀁴􀀺􀁾􀀠􀀠wu QV> o -: -= 1. : ! ST 2 -J.--i ..:. 2' : : 4 _ -3 : 6 -+--1 : : -4--a _ ---= 5 : : 1.0 _ : -: : ! 12 -ST
ST ST ST u: • 􀀬􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀠> 00•• 􀁩􀁾V> 0 􀁦􀀭􀁾􀀠0 􀀬􀁾􀁾'" 0 􀁾􀀠c::!g" .:;; 􀀮􀁾􀀠c'... :t 0 􀁾􀀮􀁦m.. 0", E u'• 􀀽􀁾􀀠e 􀁾􀁾•.. ...." , 􀁓􀁾􀁾􀁌􀀤􀀮􀀧􀁩􀀧􀁪􀀨􀁾􀀮􀀠GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
! 3.5 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.7 37 LL=S5 PL=30 PI=55 32 37 32 34 BORING II'I!fIHOD SS -STANDARl) PENETRATION TEST HSA • HOllOW STEM AUG.ERSAT COMPlETION DRY FT.ST • SHELBY TUBE CFA -CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGERS CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AHER HRs.. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRilliNGWATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION on! _______-'G"BW=-'ENG"'_INEBRS, INC. Boring No. Architect/Engineer
_____________________ Job No. ________O"'O"'9=8!!.8________ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________-'AM!!!'!________ Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DAL
TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION -= : : 􀁾􀀠: -= -:: = -: --= : : -: -:;-' Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. --lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Dfop In. 􀁾􀀠--Drill Foreman
BDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • "300> 􀁾􀁥Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. •Vi 3 0 1-:;; Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 in, 􀁾􀀠􀀢􀁾oIi cci 􀁾􀀮􀁾z go c' SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀁾􀁾􀀠" W ••;::
􀁾􀀠co. ::> w !!! .. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀁴􀀠J:W J l' 􀁵􀁾􀀠!i:;;! .. ..w • Ii;::. ;::.. 􀁾􀀠635± I-W wu .:0 􀀻􀁬􀁪􀁾􀀠• {!(;i<1>0 Oen enZ .. Dark Brown hard CLAY(CH) with 0 some
sand and a trace of gravel. -S.2SII of concrete at surface -very stiff below 4' • -1 ST : -2 --2 ST -4 : = --3 ST -------------6'--6 Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) with some sand. :
-= 4ST : -----------------8' : 1--8 Tannish Brown stiff CALCARBCUS : CLAY (CL!CH) with petro-chemical odor. -5 ST : BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . 10 _ ! = -= : 􀁾􀀠: 12 ..c 􀁾􀀠" ..
􀁾􀀠:;;•... C .2 t>,'" 􀁾􀀠0 en 􀁾􀀠l 􀁾􀀠•• ;!! 􀀮􀀽􀀬􀁾􀀭􀁧􀀠􀁾􀀠E .ee E E::i-;' u Ii. 􀀬􀁾􀀠J _ " If. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧• itt l: . 􀁾􀁾􀀠.. .,. .,,'" 0 􀀺􀀳􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀠" . <> :>6 !8"·
",.c:;f!a !Sa ,.'""w ;;: ::hi! Ii::>(;i... ..... 0" 4.5+ 35 LL;65 PL=36 PI=29 1.7 33 2.2 31 LL=83 PL=30 PI=53 2.2 32 1.5 22 BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGERS OC • DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSElIVATIONS 55 -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLElI TYPE AT COMPLETION DRY FT.ST -SHELBY ruBE CA -CONTiNUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER
HRS, FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ionl _______􀁾􀁇􀀺􀀿􀀡􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁴􀁌􀁅􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁒􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁓􀀡􀀮􀀡􀀬􀁾􀁉􀀽􀁎
􀁃􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁟􀁟_______ Boring No, 􀁂􀀭􀁾􀀷􀀠Archi,ectiEngineer Job No, ________0"-0"-"-9"'8"'8________ Project Name ___--'b!'IDWAY ROAD 􀁒􀁂􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁔􀁒􀀮􀁴􀁊􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾___
Drawn 6y ________"'1l:1li=________ Project Localion ADDISON. TEXAS Approved By _______􀁾􀁄􀁾􀁁􀁌􀀢􀀢􀁟_______ DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA '.. -. 5S • STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST HSA -HOllOW STEM AUGfRS : -:: --: -: --= : : --:: : ..::. : : -----1 J -Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀁮􀀠Hammer Wt. 􀁾􀀴􀀰􀀠Ibs, Date Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Drop 30 in. if:•
Drill Foreman EDl Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠00 Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀁏􀀠Inspector "-f!) 􀁾􀁪􀁪􀁪in. gBoring Method CFA Shelby Tuba 00 3 CC '" 0'" "c0 ·0 z I!a SOIL CLASSIFICATION
C 􀀮􀁴􀁾-,;• c.f:;; • -.. 3"SURFACE ELEVATION ::> 􀁾􀀠w -' l! u_ ... r r 􀀻􀁸􀀺􀁾􀀠.. "-uJ •;lit;: ::E, • ."fuu ::Eo. e 􀁾􀁣􀀠",,0 x.644± ... w 􀀺􀀡􀁩􀁾􀀠.f 􀁯􀁾􀀠(1)0 0., en'" ...'"
Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) o -i , with calcareous deposit and -.; -' some sand -􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁳􀁾􀀠fill ..::.-6.5" of concrete at surface. 􀁾􀀠ST : : 2 _ : 2 ST 3' -----------------I--Tannish
Brown and Gray very -stiff CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL/CH) --3 ST with clay' zones. --hard with limestone seamS 4 _ below 4' . : 4 ST -5' 0 ---------I--􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭Tan weathered SRALY LIMESTONE,
: : 6----..::. -:8'f-----------------8-:: : !-Tan weathered SRALY LIMESTONE, -5 TCP 􀁾􀁏􀁏􀀠BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' , SAMPLE6 TYPE GR(luttoWATER OBSERVATIONS 􀁂􀁑􀁒􀁬􀁾METHOD !
i "'. (,'-2\,,'-' 􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁏􀀠--' " 'J. -" ? ,:.;. :. ... ,.v' "-' ". ' .. ' ... '" ". 􀁾􀀠0. 'iii' 3 to :;; 􀁾􀀠... c 0't; 􀁾􀀠f!) 15 '" , , 􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾•• i •􀁾􀀠i5. • E E J;; '" ·t:'E"g
0 g I 􀁉􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀧􀀠u ·i 􀁾􀀮􀀲􀂷􀀶" .: 0,c_ ;:, ._ ....,j;< 􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠i=::r􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀠-'"'c u. ::il5:o: 􀁾􀁾DC. 􀀮􀁬􀀱􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠fI II IIgoc g'o /:.;"0::.., ;: 􀀺􀀺􀁦􀁦􀁾􀁯􀀺.... .....
0-" 2,0 27 LL=85 PL=30 PI=SS 2.7 38 2.5 27 4.5+ 􀁾􀁓􀀠􀁾􀁓􀀠! AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST ' SHELBY TUBE CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HAS. FT. DC • DRIVEN
CASINGS TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS NONE FT, 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (972) 620·8911 ient 􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁇􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁂􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁗􀀧􀀡􀀭􀀧􀁂􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁬􀀺􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁓
􀁃􀁌􀀮􀀭􀀽􀁬􀀺􀀽􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀧􀀢􀀧􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭BoringNo. ______....B-18 ____.... ____ Architect/Engineer Job No. ________"'0"'0",,9"'8"'8'-_______ Project Name ___--'MIDWAy ROAD RBCONSTR'O'CTl:ON Drawn By ________􀀭􀀧􀁬􀁜􀁈􀁾________ Project
Location ______􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁉􀁓􀁏􀁎􀀮􀀠TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRIlliNG AND SAMPLING INFORMATION SS . STANb'Mp PENETRATION TEST HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERSAT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA -CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGERSST -SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS-FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRilliNG CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER WATER ON RODS NONE FT. -= . -: Dale Started
1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. ;\;• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠00> i e,"spector Rock Core Dia, in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠0. Shelby Tube 00
3 0 .... ,; •Boring Method Cl"A in. 0 􀁣􀁾􀀠" > -_. _. '" 01-'w ci iig 􀁾􀀠• S •Ii •z 􀁾􀀮􀁴􀀻􀀠• #. i 􀀬􀁴􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠-g '" c_ :; E E .E SOIL CLASSIFICATION £ 􀁬􀁾􀀠• 0 E .9' -I ,;::J ;.
• I-0 11 • c , ..J u;::0 ., ; 00 􀀮􀁾􀀠n .i E 􀁾􀁾􀁾::; co. • ,r 3: r :..6:.?:' 2.f _􀁣􀁾􀁮􀁅􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀠_as. 􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁣􀁾􀀮__ f-. 􀁾􀀮􀀠. 0. 8" 0 -'" 8iSURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀁾􀀠W W 􀀮􀁅􀁾􀀠'!:.g
:3"££:!:w a! 􀁾􀀠E 􀁾􀀠Jl §;it:i !;\f on 􀁾􀀠􀀵􀁣􀁾􀀠.ll... ..:;;. ·c .!! U II II 􀁾􀀠x. :a 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠Sa ,.. 􀁾644± I-W we.> 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁯􀁯􀀠􀁑􀁾􀀠:lito:..0 0 .. .. .. ""'I-"'I-Dark
Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) 0 with some sand and calcareous 1 ST 3.2 32 LL=73 nodules .. poss. fill 􀁐􀁌􀁾􀀲􀀷􀀠-2 ST 3.2 38 PI=46 Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS . 3 ST 4.5+ 19 CLAY (CL/CH)
with limestone 5' 5 .. 4 ST 4.5+ 14 􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁭􀀡􀀮____ -------,...1---Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. ------8' ----------L __ -Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. -5 TCP 100 14 10 1" BOTTOM OF TEST BORING
AT 10 I. -----: -: .. --= : : --:: -􀁾􀀢􀀠... SAMPLER.TYPE i I : --15 -: : -= : : 20 ---: 25 --:: : -= ! : !-30 􀁾􀀠GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING MEI1fOD i I 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dailas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ient _______􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁗􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁅􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁾􀁉􀀢􀁎􀁅􀀽􀁅􀀢􀁒􀀽􀁓􀁌􀀬􀁟􀀧�
�􀀢􀀢􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀮_______ Boring No. 􀁂􀀭􀁾􀀹􀀠Architect/Engineer ______________________ Job No. ________􀁏􀁾􀁏􀀮􀁩􀀡􀀹􀀮􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀸􀀮􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀸________ Project Name MIDWAl1 ROAD RECONSTRtlCTION
Drawn By ________􀀮􀀬􀀻􀁁􀁋􀁾________ Project location ADDISON , TI!XAS Approved By DAL TEST DATA r HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUG.ERSSS • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA
-CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERSST • SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRs.. FT. DC -DRIVEN CASINGS CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER MD ·MUD DRILLING TCp· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NON!! FT. :
: --:: : -: DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀀱􀀠HammerWt. 􀁾􀀴􀀰􀀠Ibs. D.te Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in, 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in,
􀁾􀀠􀁯􀁾􀀠-----􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁡􀀻􀀠!nspector Rock Cora Dia. in. "' 􀁾􀁴􀁩􀀠􀁾􀀠0. Shelby Tube 00 3 in. a 􀁾􀀠Boring Method CFJI. a 􀁣􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠> N 0"" -iii';:;' c • S xci ·0 to e •z 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠..
0. 􀁾􀀠-$. 􀀧􀁾􀁅􀁾'" c " E I 􀁦􀁾SOIL CLASSIFICATION .S cfl .. 0 􀁾􀀠" .5:J-;.• ,... u .. ...Ju.t:'• olf c '" 􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀠t! 􀁾􀁴􀀻􀀮􀁾:z ro is,,, !! .. 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠::> ill ill .. ..U 􀁾􀁕􀀠"
0 .£!!!l iii SURFACE ELEVATION to r.h U 􀁾􀁾􀀠rw it J 0{! •.. 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠..,IQ.a::: Ii:": "w ro_ ! 􀁾􀀺􀁾'" ! o'C'V; 􀁾:z. :z.. 0 mc ! 􀁾􀀮􀀠II II IIx. '3 Ofe t.l f!fii 􀁬􀁾644± ,...ill
l!l&! «0 􀀻􀀧􀁽􀁪􀁾􀀠" c_o 0 11 ;i:, J .... _ ",0 "'Z .. '" ::)(01-J .... Brown and Tan hard CLAY(CH) o -with calcareous deposit, gravel and some sand. -poss. fill -6.5" of concrete
at surface. -1 ST 4.5+ 21 LL=73 -PL=28-= PI=45 2 _ : 2 ST 4.5+ 32 -= : : .:.----------------4'---4 -Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS : CLAY (CL) with limestone seams. .:. -. -: .:. = : -::
: : ---------------Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. '------------------Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . SAMPLER TYPE 3 I ST 6' 6-: = .:. : 8' : ---8-: : -: 4 TCP !.QQ
: 1.311 , 10 _ : -= 􀁾􀀠-I 12 -I GROUNDWATER OIlSERVATIONS 4.5+ 20 LL=48 PL=20 PI=28 13 I BORING METHOD 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION jent _______􀁾􀁇􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁂􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁎􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀺􀁇􀀡􀀡􀁉􀀽􀁎􀁅􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀮􀁥􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀺
􀀡􀀧􀁓􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁟􀀮􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀽􀁉􀀬􀀻􀁯􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀮􀀧􀁟_______ Boring No. B-20 Architect/Engineer ____________________ Job No. _______-"0C!:0!.a9e<;8!j;8l-_______ Project Name ___􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁍􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁄􀀢􀀧􀁗�
�􀀢􀀧􀀠ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By.. Y ________-'.AK!!!'!________ Project Location ADDISON! TEXAS Approved By _______-"D"'AL"'-_______ TEST DATA ',;: '," "'. 􀀬􀀭􀁾􀀠" BqRING METHOD
S$ • 􀁳􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁧􀁾􀁗􀁛􀁪􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁔􀁒􀁁TION TEST HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUG.ERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERSST SHEuiy 􀁔􀁕􀁂􀁾􀀠. CA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE
PENETRATION TEST MD -MUD DRILLING Date Started 1-21.-01 HammerWt. 140 lbo, Date Completed 1.-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample
00 in. • " 􀁾􀀠00> 􀁾􀁭􀀠Rock Core Dia. in. G Inspector ., !;; CFA 3 0 Boring Method Shelby Tube 00 in. c c· N 0'" : : -: ---: ------: : -= : ----: " .-c ? SOIL CLASSIFICATION SURFACE
ELEVATION 643± Tannish Brown and Gray hard CALCAREOUS CLAY(CL) with limestone seams. -7,25" of concrete at surface. ---------------Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10'
• , .;: .', ....., .. ,. '.' ci 􀀧􀁴􀁾􀀠z 􀁾􀁾.m a c" 􀁾􀁾.S w w m_ ::;; m co. o. 􀀸􀁾::> W W "'3: 3:W 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁷􀀠E •;a: !i:;;! o. • 􀀮􀁾􀀠:I!. ::;;o. 2 mc x.... w wu t:jg "'> Z 0-<1)0
0<1) <I)", "'<1) o ---1 ST 2'e---2 : -.:: : -4 : 2 TCP lJl.Q. : 1.3" 6-: : -= : :8-: : -: 3 TCP J&Q. : 1.311 10 : , : -.:: 􀁾􀀠12 -1 GROUNOWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER
HRS-FT. WATER ON RODS NONE FT. '" n 􀁾􀀠:;•I-c 'fi o cw; , , 􀁾􀁾􀁧􀀠: c ' '" ge§ 􀀱􀀰􀁾'5 "' •􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠xe •n .,;.... * 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠E 􀁾􀀠:E 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁩􀀻􀀧0 ! ,!!, l'u , II,
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠1'l i • E :g -2:g C ' It! ;::,, 0 􀁩􀀧􀁽􀁾􀀺,,,<:If u ::J1l..G: 􀀺􀀺􀀾􀁾􀀠ll· II II II 􀀺􀁦􀁾􀀠.. ;:::>th..-􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁯􀀮0" 4.5+ LL=59 PL=21 PI=38 13 • 15 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 15229 (912) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION lient _______􀁾􀁇􀀻􀀿􀀺􀁂􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁗􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀢􀀡􀁊􀀺􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀡􀀡􀀧􀁒�
�􀀺􀀡􀁓􀀡􀀮􀀡􀀬􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁊􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀮􀀡􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀽􀁟_______ Boring No. B-21 Architect/Engineer Job No, 00988 Projeot Name ____"'MJ:DWAY ROllD Rl!IC()NSTll.UCTJ:ON Drawn By ________􀀭􀀧􀁁􀁍􀁾________
Project location ______􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁬􀁉􀁄􀁾􀁄􀁾􀁉􀁓􀁏􀁎􀀬􀀠TlIXAS Approved By _______􀀭􀀽􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁾􀀡􀀮􀁟_______ DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA : : --: -Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer
Wt. 140 lb•. '" Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • 􀀳􀁾􀀠Rock Core Dia. in. 􀁾􀀠je 􀁾􀀠Inspector ifj 0. 0 1-:; •Boring Method CFA Shelby
Tube 00 3 in. c· 􀁾􀀠0 .,,'" 􀀮􀁾􀀠N mOS m 􀁾􀀠•.; 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠!:. 1i 10 •z #. 􀀮􀁾􀀮􂂬􀀧􀁧􀀠'" q, ;; E 􀁾􀀠.r'SOIL CLASSIFICATION .s •• ,:e '" <' 􀀮􀀡􀀻􀁾􀀠;. "fi u \l. .2' ...Jo·t:: 􀁾􀀠c
• • 􀁾.. " u: e_ ll:.; <' !;! '0;,; ,g ::i .. 􀁯􀁾􀀠.2 • 􀀮􀁾􀀠0 :J1n'l;; SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀁊􀀺􀀠w w <' u' II 􀁾􀂣􀁴􀁩􀀠"", -g'"": u 􀀺􀀳􀀢􀁾􀁾,"W " " 18-3 til -",Ii:« .. "w • c"'_
0􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠" I=fu ::E. ::i.. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀸􀁣􀁾􀀠.". 1111 II 15 c ! c: oc lii 643± wU 0(0 􀁾􀁾􀀠• !f.{:!. 􀀢􀁾􀀠""",0 0<1) <nZ .. 1-'" '" 􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀩􀁴􀁩􀁩􀁾􀀠0"' ll: " .... Tannish Brown very
stiff to o _ hard CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with : limestone seams. -6.7511 of concrete at surface. -1 ST 2.7 22 f-----------------f􀁾􀀧􀀭2 Gray SHALl' LIMESTONE. -:: ..:. -: -: : ..:. .
-..:. -: : -:: -BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT lOt. , -4 :: 2 TCP 100 :: 1.Slt :: -6-: -8-:: : -: 3 TCP 100 : 1.311 10 :: ...: :: 12 :: , 13 16 I ! BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUG.ERS
CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 55 • 5TANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. 5T . SHELBY TUBE CA • CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
,enl _____ ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GBW 􀁅􀁎􀁇􀀺􀁲􀁮􀀺􀁂􀀧􀀮􀀡􀀺􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁓􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀡􀀬􀀭􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁎􀀢􀀮􀀺􀁃�
�􀀭􀀬􀀬_______ Boring No. B-22 Architect/Engineer __________________ Job No. 00988 Projecl Name MIDWAY ROAD RBCONS'l'lWC'l'ION Drawn By J\H Project Location ADDISON" TBXAS Approved By
DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started 1.-21.-01. HammerWt. 1.40 .L Date Completed 1.-21.-01. Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠I Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • L
􀁾􀀠0 0 Rock Core Dia. in. 􀁾􀀠-iii "Inspector iii liI.... :; "Shelby Tube 00 3 in, c •BOling Method CFA !ij §o! 'iii .2 "0;;; c: ;! 0 ci w 􀁾􀀠k 􀁩􀀢􀁾􀀠K •z 􀁾􀀠_'0 '" :; E E E 􀀮􀁾􀀠il-"
SOIL CLASSIFICATION c 􀁾􀁾􀀠{!. 0. g " 􀀮􀁳􀁾􀀠>'ii U 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀺􀂧􀀠1 • o If. Ii i ii. o . l!• 50\: 3:., c 􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀠"" lii" 0. ':Iii> SURFACE ELEVATION 􀀡􀁾􀀠w \j UL Il 􀁾􀁾􀀠""0-E'"":
U gs:A:::!:w 1t S.; Jl _<J) ........ :!i, oe. 0",' l!""« 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀵􀀠􀁵􀁾􀁣􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠.!1 􀁾􀀻􀁾643± wo «0 􀁾􀀠􀁬􀁾􀀠>. •• C_o L" 3:O<J) U>Z .. ,..U) "''''.... 0.0 : Tannish Brown and Gray
hard a = CALCAREOUS CLAY(CL) with : limestone seams. = -: -6.7S1t of concrete at surface. -: 1. ST 4.5+ 1.8 LL=35 PL=17 -PI=18 -2' -------------------2 : 2 CA 1.3 Gray SHALY LIMESTONE.
= -= 4 _ -: 3 ITCP 100 1.21"---: -: 6: ...: -􀁾􀀠: B-:;-!-." >, . : -: 4 ITCP 100 16: 1.511 -BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . 10 _ = -...: "':'" -' " 'l-,".., .. , . _ f . 􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀭..:.
SAMPLE!! TYPE mONS . HSA -...,,' 􀁗􀁬􀁉􀀧􀁲􀀺􀁾􀁅􀀭􀀺􀁉􀀡􀂷􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀢􀀧.' 􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀠􀀧􀀬􀁾SS -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT .';"...,n., DRY FT. CFA -WN . ,'::'''-1'FLiGH'f'AUGERSST SHELBY
TUBE CA ' CONTINUOUS FUGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. DC ' DRIVEN.'. TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ,MUD DRILLING WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
􀁾􀀠ALPHA TES'nNG, INC I), 2209 Wisronsm St., Suite 100 􀁾􀀠Dallas, Thxas 75229 11t. (972) 620-8911 KEY TO SOIL SVnBOLS RHD CLRSSIFICRTIOHS THE ABBREVIATIONS COMMONLY EMPLOVED ON EACH
"RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION", ON THE FIGURES AND IN THE TEXT OF THE REPORT, ARE AS 􀁆􀁏􀁌􀁌􀁏􀁾􀁓􀀺􀀠SOIL OR ROCK TVPES 􀀨􀁓􀁈􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀠IN SYMBOLS COLUMN) 􀁾􀀠IllD1 􀀮􀁾􀀠CLAY SILT
SAND 􀁾􀀠LIMESTONE rn -=-===:: SHALE 􀁾􀀠...... 􀀺􀀬􀀻􀀮􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀺.'. " ASPHALT/CONCRETE • I. SOIL DESCRIPTION (A) COHESIONLESS SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY N, 􀁂􀁌􀁏􀁾􀁓􀀯􀁆􀁔􀀠VERY LOOSE 0
TO 4 LOOSE 5 TO 10 COMPACT 11 TO 30 DENSE 31 TO SO VERY DENSE OUER SO (B).COHESIUE SOILS CONSISTENCV VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD Qu, TSF LESS THAN .25 .25 TO .50 .50 TO
1.00 1.00 TO 2.00 2.00 TO 4.00 OUER 4.00 III. IV. RELATIVE PROPORTIONS DESCRIPTIVE TERM PERCENT TRACE 1 -10 LITTLE 11 -20 SOME 21 -35 AND 36 -50 PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION BOULDERS:
-8 INCH DIAMETER OR MORE COBBLES : -3 TO 8 INCH DIAMETER GRAVEL : -COARSE -3/4 TO 3 INCH -FINE -5.0 MM TO 3/4 INCH SAND -COARSE -2.0 MM TO.!!i:O 1111 -MEDIUM -.0.4 1111 TO 2.0 MM -FINE
-0.07 MM TO 0.4 MM SILT . -0.002 1111 TO 0.07 MM CLAV -0.002 MM 􀁾􀀮􀁉􀀮􀀠PLASTICITY V. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SVMBOLS AU: AUGER SAMPLE .... DEGREE OF PLASTICITY NONE TO Sll GHT SliGHT
MEDIUM HIGH TO VERY HIGH 0 5 11 PLASTICITY INDEX -4 -10 -30 OVER 30 NOTE: ALL SOILS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE UN IF·I EO SO I L CLASS I F I CATI ON sYSTEM (ASTM 0-2497) RC: ROCK CORE
TCP: TEXAS CONE .PENETRATION TEST SS: SPLIT-SPOON 1 3/9" 1.0. 2" 0.0. EXCEPT WHERE NOTED ST: SHELBV TUBE = 3" 0.0. EXCEPT WHERE NOTED WS: 􀁾􀁁􀁓􀁈􀁅􀁄􀁓􀁁􀁍􀁐􀁌􀁅􀀠HSA: HOLLOW STEM AUGERS
CFA: CONTiNUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS MO: MUD DRILLING 
APPENDIXE EXISTING STORM SEWER ANALYSIS 
MIDWAY ROAD 􀁒􀁴􀀺􀁾􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁕􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠 COMMON VARIABLES USED IN ANALYSIS EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM Mannings lin" Pipe Mat'l Recommended n-value Source RCP 0.013 Per the Town
of Addison Drainage Manual CMP,PLN 0.024 Plain or Coated) Per the Town of Addison Drainage Manual CMP,PVD 0.020 (Paved Invert) Per the Town of Addison Drainage Manual Outfall Information
Storm Sewer HGL (tailwater) Outfall Location Comments LINEA 610.50 616.12 9'x5' HGL shown based on "tailwater" elevation shown on as-built plans, associated storm event not listed. LINE
B 610.93 616.54 LINEA LINE C 610.60 616.12 9'x5' HGL shown based on "tailwater" elevation shown on as-built plans, associated storm event not listed. LINE D 611.73 616.12 9'x5' HGL shown
based on "tailwater" elevation shown on as-built plans, associated storm event not listed. LINE E Unknown Plans lor tnls system coula not oe louna, only one Inlet located within the
limits of pavement reconstruction J:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSIADDISONIQQ-238\238 Drainage Cales Exist.xls 238 Drainage Cales Exist.xls, Variables 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM INLET NO. DESIGN STORM , J:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSIADDISONIOO-2381238 Drainage Cales Exist.xls 1216/01,11:42
AM 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM J:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSIADDISONIOO-238\238 Drainage Cales Existxls 1216101, 11:42 AM 
MIDWAY ROAD k..,,,;ONSTRUCTION INLET CALCULATiONS EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM TOTAl 1 COUI.O NOT VERIFY EXISTENCE IN FlEW OR FROM FIELD SURVEY; THEREFORE, ASSUME FOR CONSERVAl1VENESS
rnAT THE FLOW ENTERS me STREET AND ENTERS TH5 SYSTEM AT INLET CiS. ALSO, SINCE THE PlANS CALI. msA DOUBLE GRATE INlET, IT IS POSSIBl5 THAT IT WILl. B5 CI.OGGEO BY DEBRIS DURING THE:
􀁓􀀧􀁬􀀧􀁏􀁾AND TH5REFORE:, BE IflEFFECT!VE. :2 INlET$OFFOFMIDWAY; WP WIlEY POST !..B UNOSERG GR GRATE INLET J:WiPQOC.SlPlWJl!C1S\AOOlSOtU»l).2M12le 0nln4i',lfl CMt 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀦􀁬􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁬􀀺􀀴􀀰􀁐􀁍􀀠
MIDWAY ROAl.. JNSTRUCTtON LATERAl CALCULATIONS EXISTING STORM SE'W£R SYSTEM """"" 􀁾􀁏􀁊􀁅􀁥􀁔􀁾􀁏􀁲􀁾􀁃􀁯􀁯􀁫􀀺􀁡􀁾􀀠1218101, 􀀱􀁉􀀢􀁾􀀱􀁉􀁍􀀠
MIDWAY ROAD ,.JNSTRUCTIOH LA'J'ERAL CALCULATIONS EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM 
MIDWAYROAt> ,.)NSTRUCTION STORM SEWER CAl.CUlATlONS EXtSTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM 1 In .....o IOcalloM \he Town of 􀁁􀂫􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁉􀀧􀁉􀀠Drainage Manual 􀁾s!Jblt&GU!'lg tholwrQ 􀁙􀁾􀁦􀁴􀁹heads
and 􀁭􀁵􀁬􀁾111$ 􀁾􀁾bY !;he lOss coettlclem. However on F1gl,lril5-4, \he stantlafd"",lIyb! mulUpljlllQ tho lap coeffidenl and Ihe UMtreamvtllodly !lead and then 6ubtraellrlg Iht pnxfuct
fmm 1M OOwl'l5tream l1e1o!:IlyMIId 16 shaWn, f!ee,l.ll't\he lalter Is II more iXlnlef'YJJIIv\! app<Qach.1I was uled f(l these caic1.I1I\bII$. ZThB CIOI'W'rItI has Peen 􀁾to I\eJp Identify
pipes floWIng In 􀁰􀀮􀁊􀁴􀁕􀁡􀁊􀁾􀀢􀀠If the pipe 16 fto!NItIg u!'!de( per1Ial 􀁾􀀮􀀱􀀮􀁨􀁥spudsheeliooks tip .. ralkl QI Cesl\'lnflow IG flJlI pipe Ibw 10 determlM the ratio Of design
dep!h to full dep\h; This depth rallo l$lhenused W dete1m!ne!be depth at the deslQn 􀁾III 1M pipe. If thl6 depth Is toss Ulan !he 􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠HGlusing the /rt(.lIon $klpe,lheii!he
depth baed on the 􀁰􀁴􀁏􀁾lIow::lIls used to seEthe HGL at that point. The infomlaljon wed to detel'lJ'liine the pn;ipGrlkmal now ean be Iolmd In !'I\!meltllJll 5OUrces, Il1ts $p;-eadlheet
conlulled Coocmto Ffpo 􀁾MiIroJaI, F/tp'e 20 end Opm Cflal'l/IQ/􀁈􀁾􀁢􀁹􀁃􀁨􀁣􀁷􀀮FiglJffl6-5. 􀁊􀀻􀁗􀁜􀀧􀁾􀁅􀀨􀀻􀁬􀀧􀀤􀁜􀁁􀁏􀁏􀁉􀁾􀁚􀁬􀁎􀀳􀁴􀁏􀁲__􀁥􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠..1\1im.',02PW 
APPENDIXF PROPOSED STORM SEWER ANALYSIS 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION COMMON VARIABLES USED IN ANALYSIS PROPOSED STORM SEWER SYSTEM Mannings ifnI! Pipe Mat'l Recommended n-value Source RCP 0.Q13 Per the Town of Addison Drainage
Manual CMP,PLN 0.024 Plain or Coated) Per the Town of Addison Drainage Manual C;t.1l',PVD _._-0,020 (Paved Invert] Per the Town of Addison Drainage Manual on on Unknown ! J:IWPDOCSIPROJECTS\ADDISONIO
O·2381238 Drainage Cales Prop.x1s 238 Drainage cales Prop,xls. VaMables 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED STORM SEWER SYSTEM J:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSIADDISONIOO-238\238 Drainage Calcs Prop.xls 1216101,11:38AM 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED STORM SEWER SYSTEM J:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSIADDISONIOO-2381238 Drainage Cales Prop.xls 1216/01,11:38AM 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION INLET CALCULATIONS PROPOSED STORM SEWER SYSTEM INLET DESIGN 􀁁􀂷􀁒􀁅􀁁􀁾􀁒􀁵􀁎􀁏􀁆􀁦􀁬􀀠Q=CIA 􀁃􀁁􀁒􀁒􀁙􀁾􀀠INL-e;TCAi.9YLATIONS 00· 􀁾􀁃􀁁􀁐􀁁􀁣􀁉􀁔􀁙􀀠􀁬􀁅􀁎􀁾_OEI
INLET CARRY.QIJERTO 􀁾􀁾􀁆􀁌􀁯􀁖􀁩􀀠C'ca·A PAVING 􀁾STORM TIMEO!" OVER TOTAL C""OS GUTTER Al,LOWABLE GUTTER PER FOOT OFfNLET LENGTHf TYPSOF INLET !NTO INTO NO. STATION AREA NO. FREQUNCY
CONe. INTENSITY 􀁃􀀧􀁣􀁡􀁾􀁁􀀠"Q" FROM FLOW SLope DEPTH DEPTH SLOI'!! LOWPT OFINLEr RECtO ARr;Ag 1Nm" NO. Fl,OW"a" INlET INLet "'0 """ .c.f.,. r:::.f.s. 􀁤􀁾􀀠.. ft • ". """ (ft}f( )
'" '"• 4+ i , , ,. , 4, 14, E ," • 1U 1. B2 ..45 2 " "" 0,32 2,6 0.0 2.• 2,150 0.20 '.'12 0.017 GRAllE 0.43 ,.. '0 clIRa .. 0.0 2.' 0" "" ."'" 4 100 '0 a14 0.41 3.' 0,0 3.' 2,000 0.21
.,42,_ 0.017 lOWPT 0,29 12,$ 1. CURB LowPT 07 2." 0.33 AI 5+.. 3 ,,'0 '. 6.74 1.25 10,9 3.3 '4.2 1,"" 0.35 ••42 0.017 LOWPT 0,e1 23.2 2. CURS LOWPT ". 123 1.'1' 01' 10+65 6A 100 10 e,74
0041 3.' 0.. 3,6 0.24 OAt) M06 LOWPT 0.'" 10.0 10 CURB 01. 0,0 ". OAt D1. 10"65 6. 100 10 6,74 0.'" 3,3 0,0 3,' 1.820 0,23 1)AO 0.006 LOWPT 0,34 9.6 10 CURB LOWPT 0,0 3.' "-36 D2 6C
100 10 S,74 •.56 4,' 0,0 4,' 1.820 0,27 0.40 0.006 GRADE 0,'" ,,' 10 CURB 0" 0,. 4,' 0,56 C'A 11+10 SA 100 10 S.74 •.45 3,' M 3.' 4.390 0,'" -.>. 0.42 00 LOWPT 0.63 '.3 10 CURB Cl. 0.•
". 0.45,.C'. 11+10 s. 10. B.74 0.19 1,7 M 17 4.3110 .,25 CA2 0,,,",, l..OWPT n.39 4.3 10 CURB LOWPT 0.0 ',7 0.19 C2 15+'" 7 '00 10 B.74 11>2,. .,' 0.0 " 2.060 0,36 0.42 .... _De .,sa
15.4 20 CURB O'A 0.0 B,' 1.02 co 15+31 • '.0 S.74 o,eo 5,' 0,0 53 4.170 0.34 0.42 0013 GRADe 0.56 9,' 10 CURB C'A 0.0 5,3 0.60 C4 17+0.5 , 100 8.74 1,1'1I. I. '.7 3.8 .3,s 2.080 0.32
0,42 CI-025 GRAllE '.54 24.9 20 CURB 05 2.' 10.9 1.25,.co 16.40 100 8.74 CA' '.6 12.7 1M 2.080 OAI OA' 0,010 GRADE 0.63 26,1 20 CtJRB C4 3.' \2J1 1.44,.e.... lOA 100 8.74 34. 29.' 0,0
21U 2,OtlO . • .'12 OFFRO lOWPT 1.06 26.0 '6 !lRO!' C5 12.7 17,0 1.94 co 19+90 11 tOo 10 8,74 ..... 7,0 2,7 9.7 2,oea ..34 0.42 0.010 GRADE .... 11.4 14 CURB C5 '.9 ,.8 0,69 07 21.05
12 100 10 $,74 0.59 ,., •.0 '.2 4.170 0,34 0.42 0.012 GRAllE 􀀰􀁾􀀶􀀠9.3 10 CURS C3 0,0 5.' 0,59,. ,.co wI" 27 100 S.74 0,34 2.9 0.• 2.9 ...'" 0.32 0,42 0.013 RAtIE 0.64 5. CURB co 0,0
2.0 e,34 CO w 2. 100 ,. S,74 1.22 10.6 o,e 10.U 4,080 ·0.41 0,42 0,018 GRAtIE (l62 17.0 14 ClIRB co '.9 '.7 1.00 CIO 2:>+15 13 100 10 3.74 0,66 5,9 2.4 ,-' 2,080 0,32 e,., 0010 GRAtIE
0,54 15.5 14 CURB co .,. 7.B 0.81 CI1 23+1. 14 100 10 8.74 0,85 4.8 0,0 4.8 4.170 0,,. .,42 ...8 GRADe 0.57 8.4 I. CURB 0' .,0 4,8 (l55 C12 "... I. 100 10 B.74 1.18 10.3 0,' 10.3 2....
0'" ..42 0.010 GRADE e.56 18,3 14 CURB CIO 2,' 7,' .OO C13 21+15 16 100 10 8.14 0.51 4,6 ... 4.9 2,'" e.26 0,42 0,010 GRADE OA9 10.1 '0 CURB C12 0,' 4,' 0.56 014 27"'" " 100 '0 8.74
0.32 2,' 0.0 '.B . 0,42 OFF"" Lower 1.06 2.B , CURB C13 0.• 2,' 0.32 C'S 28+45 17 '00 10 6.74 0.76 B,' ',3 7.9 2:080 "-31 0.42 0.010 GRADE 0,53 14.9 14 CURB 013 0.' 7,5 0.B6 01. ....,
16 100 10 6.74 0.34 2,' 0.0 2.9 4.'70 028 0.42 0.012 GRADE 0,50 5.9 10 CURB 011 0,0 ... •.34 017 30·35 19 100 10 8.74 0.64 7,3 1.1 e., 2.060 02' 0,42 0.020 OOAOE 0.51 1M 14 CU,", C15
1.3 1,' 0.61 018 31+40 20 '00 10 8.'1'4 0,62,. '.4 0.0 ,4 4.170 0,34 0.42 .013 GRADE 0.5$ 9.7 10 CURe C'B 0.0 M 0.62 Oto 32+10 21 100 a,74 0.96 a. 􀁏􀁾􀀠SA 2,0ll0 0.30 0.42 0014 _DE
0.62 11,,"0 14 CURB 017 1.1 7.3 0,84 = G 30 100 10 .7. 0.00.,. 0,. 0,0 0.0 0,000 0.00 OFF "" LOWPT " 0,0 4 GRATE OtO 0.0 0.0 0,00 C21 35'" 23 100 10 0.63 5.5 0,0 '.5 U6l) 0.42 0,42 0.005
GRADE 0.53 8" 1. CURB C1' 0.0 5,5 0.63 C22 ...2<) 22 100 10 .7' •.63 7,3 0,0 7.3 2.'" 0.35 0,42 0.005 """DE 0.57 12.8 14 CURB CtO •.0 7.3 0,63 C25 32 100 10 B.74 .," 32 0.3 3,6 2,0ll0
0.27 0,42 0.005 GRADE 0.49 7,3 10 CURS 022 0,0 3.' 0.41.,..C2<I 31 100 10 6.14 6.' 0,0 59 4,360 0,430.42 0.005 GRADE: D,", '.2 10 CURS C21 0.0 5,9 oa C27 33 100 10 8.74 D,'" 6,7 0,0
5.7 2,0130 0.32 0.42 0.005 GRAO!: .... 10.6 10 CtJRB C25 0.3 5A 0<2 C23 C 2. 100 ,. B.74 0'.46 '.0 0.0 4.0 3.400 0.27 0.42 0..016 GRADE 0.49 " 10 CURS 02 o,e 4,0 0,46 024 LO 26 ,.0 10
6.74 04. 4.3 0.0 4.3 3.700 0.29 0.42 0.014 GRADE ...2 B.3 10 OURS 02 0.0 .., 0.49 C2.4A L 26A 'DO .0 8.74 1.12 g,a 0.0 ... 3.700 0,40 0.42 0.014 GRADE 0.62 15.9 10 CURB 04 '" ., 0.71
E' 54+15 2' 100 10 6.'1'4 3.' ,0 0,. 30.0 397 057 0.42 0, DE 0.60 31,7 10 CURB L PT 22,0 ao 0.91 1 COULD NOT VERIFY EXiSTENCE IN FIELD OR FROM FtELO SURVEY;THEREFQRE.ASSUME FOR CONSERVATNENESS
THAT THE FLOW ENTERS THE STr:u;ET AND ENTERS THE SYSTEM AT INLET C19. Also. SINce THE PLANS CAll TKtS AOOuau: GRATEINLf,;1', IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ITWIU ee Cl.OGGeD BY DeBRIS DURING THE
STORM AND THeR£FORE, BE INEFF5CTlVE. 2 INLeTS OFF OF MIDWAY; WP WILEY POST La LINDBERG GR GRATE INLET J:IWPOOCS1fflOJECTS\AtlOISQMOO.238\238 􀁾CalC$ PlOp.m: &t1Mn, 3:41 PM 
MIDWAY ROAD 􀁒􀁉􀀺􀀺􀁃􀁏􀁾􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁕􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁾􀀠 LATERAl. 􀁃􀁁􀁬􀀮􀁃􀁕􀁌􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁾􀁓􀀠 PROPOSED STORMSEWER SYSTEM PIPE DESCRlP'TlOt4 HEAD LOSS AT CI'V.HOE IN SECTION ElEV. 01" INYEAT AT
OESIGN ?01Kf I 􀁭􀁴􀁐􀀧􀁏􀁏􀁃􀁓􀁬􀁐􀁒􀀻􀁯􀀮􀁬􀂣􀁬􀀺􀁲􀁦􀁓􀁾􀁾0.,,",,-Cliel Prop..., 12MI.H::!IfAM 
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION: LATERAl. CALCULATIONS PROPOSEO STORM SeweR SYSTEM ....."''''''''''''"' HfAOt.O$$ A'rQWtiQE IN SEcnoH ElEV. OFINVERT Jlf OEmos POINT I IM/IH,11:UAM􀀧􀀻􀀧􀀱􀁗􀁾􀁏􀁊􀂢􀁃􀀧􀁔�
�􀁉􀁁􀁗􀁾􀁏􀁦􀁬􀁬􀀮􀀧􀀮􀁃􀀢􀁐􀁴􀁯􀁜􀀺􀁉􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠
-' M.IDWAY ROAD I'tECQH$TR!,!CTIQN STOO:M :sewe:J\ CALCULATIONS PROPOSED STORM $EWER SYSTEM 1 In t>w Ir.K:edon$ ttft TOWCl of Addlsan Omfnarga Manual $howI .ublnletmg: the hi<! veloelly
/teed. ftIld mllllptylng mil dlrreronce by tM: lou. cooMcIent 􀁾on Ailure 5-4.100 nlatld&n2 WlJ'j of 􀁭􀁵􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀨􀁬􀁧􀀠lila IcWI r;oetndoM Md IttII 􀁾􀀡􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁭􀀠ve\Qe!ty hood !!rid
I!!!H1 slIbtmctlng the ;;rodvetltl)l'fl1tia 1I0>r11lS1I'IIIIm veIOdty 116IIId Ii $I'!awn. BceollSfl tl'lfllattetls. 􀁉􀁔􀀡􀁏􀁉􀀸􀁃􀁑􀁮􀀦􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁬􀁬􀀡􀁬􀁶􀁥􀁾􀀬ttWllil WlIId In thosocalwldona.
t Thinoluml\ hD$ boon Indooed 10 help klet'lbly plpc$ fiatto!ng In pat1,\eI f\I:.ow. Uthe pipe !sl'krMng undetp&rtllll now.lIle lSjHl!ooahMI 􀁾up a milo of de!Olgn llawto twl pipe_to
4elermlM!he la\IOordeelgn dep17l!Q flltl d4{ilttl. Tl!i5. depth ratl() II then used 10 demnltuit 1M depth of the tieiilgl'l flow in !he pipe. It !hIs depln II leu lim CHI tompu!ed HGL
nll1g tho ft\c1Iort &1ojXt, the<! the depth based on Wt 􀁾􀁥􀁬􀁬􀁜􀁯􀁷􀁳􀀮􀁬􀁳uled 10 &!Il.lt!e HOI.. at Ito&l poll'lt TIle 􀁾UIIad to determine 1he 􀁾i\aw t:.Q!1l>O: fOtmd In 􀁾sources,
thb 􀀤􀁐􀁾ecnMJii.ed Conctelll PJpe DNlifIl MIMI/a/, FIguI'fJ 20 and 0p0mI 􀁾Hydra/lllcs by Chow, RJf;R'$ U 􀁊􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁏􀁲􀁟􀁥􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀢􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀠&ltIlI\1t..t.HPM 
APPENDIXG HY-8 ANALYSIS EXISTING 9' X S' BOX CULVERT (WITH AND WITHOUT OVERTOPPING) 
1 CURRENT DATE: 12-06-2001 FILE DATE: 12-06-2001 CURRENT TIME: 13:45:40 FILE NAME: MIDWAY ***********************************************************************.******** **************************
FHWA COLVERT ANALYSIS ************************** ****•••******************* HY-a, VERSION 6.1 ************************** *******************************************.**********************************
** C I SITE DATA I COLVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET I 1--------------------------1----------------------------------------------1 U L I INLET OUTLET COLVERT I BARRELS I I V I ELEV. ELEV.
LENGTH I SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET I INO.I (ft) (ft) (ft) I MATERIAL (ft) (ft) n TYPE I I 1 I 611.60 609.54 165.01 I 1 RCB 9.00 5.00 .013 CONVENTIONAL I I 2 I I I I 3 I I I I 4 I
I I I 5 I I I I 6 I I I ***.**************************************************************************** ***********************.************.***********************************.*******
SUMMARY OF COLVERT FLOWS (cfs) FILE: MIDWAY DATE: 12-06-2001 ELEV (ft) TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROADWAY ITR 611. 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1 614.42 133.4 133.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 1 616.26 266.8 266.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1 618.05 400.2 400.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1 619.71 533.6 508.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21. 89 8 619.98 667.0 524.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 13B.36 4 620.03 700.0 527.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16B.53 3 620.33 933.8 545.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 380.12 3 620.49 1067.2 554.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 507.79 3 620.63 1200.6 562.2 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 634.52 3 620.79 1334.0 533.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 788.60 3 619.60 502.0 502.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OVERTOPPING ****************************************************** ••__
.*.******._.*._••••••• ••••***.*••k_••••_••••••••••__ •••*.*•••••**•••*•••**••*k*••••••*.**••••***••••_. SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS FILE: MIDWAY DATE: 12-06-2001 HEAD HEAD
TOTAL FLOW t FLOW ELEV (ft) ERROR (ft) FLOW (cfs) ERROR (cfs) ERROR 611. 60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 614.42 0.000 133.40 0.00 0.00 616.26 0.000 266.80 0.00 0.00 618.05 0.000 400.20 0.00
0.00 619.71 -0.005 533.60 2.88 0.54 619.98 -0.005 667.00 3.95 0.59 620.03 -0.005 700.00 4.27 0.61 620.33 -0.008 933.80 8.26 0.88 620.49 -0.005 1067.20 5.15 0.48 620.63 -0.003 1200.60
3.85 0.32 620.79 -0.009 1334.00 11.80 0.88.*••••*.*••••••*.*_.....•...***••**.__ ••••* •••••*••*_.**••*.*••*.*kk.*•••***_**_ <1> TOLERANCE (ft) = 0.010 <2> TOLERANCE (t) = 1.000 * •••*****•••••******
****--_••••*.******----.***.***-***.**.*.**•••*.*._--_.*.*.. 
1 CURRENT DATE: 12-06-2001 FILE DATE: 12-06-2001 CURRENT TIME: 13:43:30 FILE NAME: MIDWAY ******************************************************************************** **************************
FRWA CULVERT ANALYSIS ************************** ************************** HY-B, VERSION 6.1 ************************** ******************************************************************************
** C 1 SITE DATA 1 CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET 1 U 1--------------------------1---------------------------------------------1 L 1 INLET OUTLET CULVERT' BARRELS , , V 1 ELEV. ELEV.
LENGTH 'SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET , INO., (ft) (ft) (ft) I MATERIAL (ft) (ft) n TYPE I I 1 I 611.60 609.54 165.01 I 1 RCB 9.00 5.00 .013 CONVENTIONAL' I 2 'I ,I 3I' I I 4 " II 5
'I I I 6 I I I ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** SUMMARY
OF CULVERT FLOWS (cfs) FILE: MIDWAY DATE: 12-06-2001 ELEV (ft) TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROADWAY ITH 611.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 /0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 a 614.42 133.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 a 616.26
266.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 a 61B.05 400.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 a 620.13 533.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 a 622.66 667.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 623.37 700.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 629.74 933.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 634.53 1067.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 639.96 1200.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 646.03 1334.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OVERTOPPING ******************************************************************************** **********************************************
********************************** SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS FILE: MIDWAY DATE: 12-06-2001 HEAD HEAD TOTAL FLOW % FLOW ELEV (ftl ERROR (ft) FLOW (cfs) ERROR (cfs) ERROR 611.60
0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 614.42 0.000 133.40 0.00 0.00 616.26 0.000 266.80 0.00 0.00 618.05 0.000 400.20 0.00 0.00 620.13 0.000 533.60 0.00 0.00 622.66 0.000 667.00 667.00 0.00 0.00 623.37
0.000 700.00 0.00 0.00 629.74 0.000 933.80 0.00 0.00 634.53 0.000 1067.20 0.00 0.00 639.96 0.000 1200.60 0.00 0.00 646.03 0.000 1334.00 0.00 0.00 *****************************************************
*************************** <1> TOLERANCE (ft) = 0.010 <2> TOLERANCE 1%) = 1.000 ******************************************************************************** 
CURRENT DATE: 12-06-2001 FILE DATE: 12-06-2001 CURRENT TIME: 13:43:30 FILE NAME, MIDWAY ********************************************************************.*********** PERFORMANCE CURVE
FOR CULVERT 1 -1 ( 9.00 (ft) BY 5.00 (ft)) RCE ************************************************** ••********************.******* DISHEAD-INLET OUTLET CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL FLOW
NORMAL CRIT. OUTLET TW OUTLET TW FLOW ELEV. DEPTE DEPTH TYPE DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH VEL. VEL. (cfs) (ft) (ft) eft) <F4> (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) **********************************************
**************************.*.***** 0.00 611.60 0.00 0.00 O-NF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 133.40 614.43 2.83 2.83 I-S2n 1.19 1.90 1.24 1.69 11.95 5.91 266.80 616.26 4.66 4.66 I-S2n
1.90 3.02 2.06 2.46 14.41 7.26 400.20 618.05 6.45 6.45 5-S2n 2.52 3.95 2.79 3.05 15.92 8.15 533.60 620.13 8.53 8.53 5-S2n 3.09 4.79 3.47 3.54 17.09 8.82 667.00 622.66 11.06 8.50 6-S2n
3.63 5.00 4.09 3.97 18.12 9.37 700.00 623.37 11.77 9.06 6-S2n 3.76 5.00 4.20 4.07 18.52 9.50 933.80 629.74 18.14 13.84 6-S2n 5.00 5.00 4.90 4.70 21.17 10.26 1067.20 634.53 22.93 17.18
4-S2n 5.00 5.00 4.90 5.01 24.20 10.63 1200.60 639.96 28.36 21.26 4-S2n 5.00 5.00 4.90 5.31 27.22 10.97 1334.00 646.03 34.4325.76 4-S2n 5.00 5.00 4.90 5.59 30.25 11.27 ****.**•••********••*.********************************************************** El. inlet face invert 611. 60 ft El. outlet invert 609.54
ft El. inlet throat invert 0.00 ft El. inlet crest 0.00 ft •••••••••***•••***.***•••••*****•••***••***••••**•••*******.******************** ••••• SITE DATA ••••• CULVERT INVERT **************
INLET STATION 165.00 ft INLET ELEVATION 611. 60 ft OUTLET STATION 0.00 ft OUTLET ELEVATION 609.54 ft NUMBER OF BARRELS 1 SLOPE (V/H) 0.0125 CULVERT LENGTH ALONG SLOPE 165.01 ft *****
CULVERT DATA SlJMMAAY ************************ BARREL SHAPE BOX BARREL SPAN 9.00 ft BARREL RISE 5.00 ft BARREL MATERIAL CONCRETE BARREL MANNING'S n 0.013 INLET TYPE CONVENTIONAL INLET
EDGE AND WALL 1 : 1 BEVEL (45 DEG. FLARE) INLET DEPRESSION DEPRESSION NONE ******************************************************************************** 
3 CURRENT DATE: 12-06-2001 FILE DATE: 12-06-2001 CURRENT TIME: 13:43:30 FILE NAME: MIDWAY ******************************************************••******.**.**_.*••**.*.** .........-..._........_...
TAILWATER ••__ .*•••••••_--••••••••••••••_._••••*••••••*••••••••* •••••••••_••••••*••••••••• ••k ••** REGULAR CHANNEL CROSS SECTION .-••_**--•••-••* BOTTOM WIDTH SIDE SLOPE H/V (X:1)
CHANNEL SLOPE V/H (ft/ft) MANNING'S n (.01-0.1) CHANNEL INVERT ELEVATION CULVERT NO.1 OUTLET INVERT ELEVATION 10.00 ft 2.0 0.010 0.030 609.54 ft 609.54 ft .****** UNIFORM FLOW RATING
CURVE FOR DOWNSTRRAM CHANNEL FLOW W.S.E. FROUDE DEPTH VEL. SHEAR (cfs) (ft) NUMBER (ft) (f/s) (psf) 0.00 609.54 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 133.40 611.23 0.803 1.69 5.91 1.07 266.80 612.00
0.816 2.46 7.26 1.57 400.20 612.59 0.822 3.05 8.15 1. 94 533.60 613.08 0.826 3.54 8.82 2.25 667.00 613 .51 0.829 3.97 9.37 2.53 700.00 613.60 0.830 4.07 9.50 2.59 93).80 614.23 0.834
4.70 10.26 2.99 1067.20 614.55 0.837 5.01 10.63 3.l9 1200.60 614.85 0.839 5.31 10.91 3.38 1334.00 615.13 0.841 5.59 11.27 3.56 -_._.........-.........._......._........._........._....•......_...._._
.....__. ...__.._....__........*.-. ROADWAY OVERTOPPING DATA ••••-•• _--*...._--_...... •••••••••_•••••••••••-••••_••••••******.**************************************** ROADWAY SURFACE
PAVED EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH 155.00 ft CREST LENGTH 200.00 ft OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION 619.60 ft ********************************************************************************